I
hope you are all well and having a great summer. I have some very good
news: we are ranked
number 1 according to H-index (among journals publishing mainly basic
science articles. According to Google: “ The h-index is
an index that attempts to measure both the productivity and impact of
the published
work of a scientist or
scholar
(or journal).” Our impact factor rose from 3.523 to 4.041. I think
these are remarkable achievement and will of course be disseminated to
the entire pulmonary community. The table listing the IF of all APS
Journals can be found in http://www.the-aps.org/mm/Publications/Journals/Impact-Factors.html
The big challenge right now is to keep our momentum for
next year. Honestly this is daunting task. Please,
consider submitting some of the outstanding articles from your
laboratory to AJP-Lung. Thanks to
the diligence and excellence of our Associate Editors and our Editorial
Board, they will be reviewed fairly and rapidly (please see our
statistics below). Furthermore, as many contributors can testify the
reviews are always helpful and improve the impact of
their articles. The expectation for my first term as editor (which
expires on January 1st,
2015) is that each member of the editorial board accepted at least 50%
of the requests to review manuscripts and published at least one
original article.
Other statistics: #
of manuscripts and rejection rates.
All manuscripts 1/1/2013-12/31/2013
Article type | submitted | Accepted | Rejected | Major Rev, | Minor Rev. | Withdrawn | % Rejected |
Editorial | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Editorial Focus | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Innovative Methodology | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Letter to the Editor | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Perspectives | 7 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Research Articles | 337 | 168 | 164 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 49 |
Review Articles | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 371 | 200 | 164 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
Final Versions of all manucsripts submitted in 2013
Article type | submitted | Accepted | Rejected | Rejected with Referral | Major Rev, | Minor Rev. | % Rejected | % Rejected with Referral |
Editorial | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Editorial Focus | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Historical Article | 7 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 |
Innovative Methodology | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 67 | 0 |
Letter to the Editor | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Perspectives | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
PIM Review | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Reply LTE | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Research Articles | 291 | 167 | 94 | 15 | 5 | 2 | 32 | 9 |
Review Article | 15 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 |
Total | 332 | 199 | 101 | 17 | 6 | 2 | 30 | 9 |
Rejection rates for research manuscripts were as follows:
201=37.45%; 2012= 48%.
Times
for first decision as well as final decision for revised manuscripts
are shown below.
I am very glad to tell you that the average time to make a decision in a
revised manuscript dropped from 13.32 days in in 2012 to 10.3 days in
2013.
Time from EIC/AE notification to decision 2012, 2013:
Query 2012
Time from EIC notification to decision sent to author
First Decision average 22.91
Time from AE Acceptance (Revision) to decision sent to author
Time to Revision Decision 13.32
Query 2013
Time from EIC notification to decision sent to author
First Decision average 21.97
Time from AE Acceptance (Revision) to decision sent to author
Time to Revision Decision 10.30
We
need ideas for reviews and calls for papers. Some to the call for
papers have been extremely
successful. We need to keep trying and rotate them to keep readers
interested. Most important we need you to contribute manuscripts and
reviews to your journal. It is my hope that our impact factor and
h-index will continue to increase. Of course this reflects
the excellence of the published articles.
I look forward to being busier and busier and complaining that I have too many papers to assign.
Please make this happen
With best regards
Sadis
No comments:
Post a Comment