Cardiovascular Research 2000 47(2):203-206; doi:10.1016/S0008-6363(00)00132-2
© 2000 by European Society of Cardiology
Copyright © 2000, European Society of Cardiology
Submissions, editorial process and impact factor 1992–2000
Focus on Europe
Tobias Opthof*,
Ruben Coronel1 and
Michiel J. Janse2
Editorial Office of Cardiovascular Research, Academic Medical Center, Room J-127, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
* Corresponding author. Present address: Department of Medical Physiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Tel.: +31-30-253-8923; fax: +31-30-253-9036 t.opthof{at}med.uu.nl
Received 23 May 2000; accepted 23 May 2000
In the August 1999 issue of Cardiovascular Research at the occasion of the congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Barcelona [1] we commented on the increase in submissions and publications from Europe from 1992 to 1998 [2–4]. Now, one year later at the occasion of the 2000 version of the same congress in Amsterdam, we present statistical data on the number of submissions, the editorial process and the impact factor in past and future.
 |
Submissions
|
|---|
Fig. 1 shows that the submissions in 1999 came primarily from
Europe (56%) and from North-America (22%) with 11% from both
Japan and the rest of the world. The estimates for 2000 (by
1 June 2000) are somewhat higher for Japan and lower for North-America.
Fig. 2 shows the absolute number of submissions for Europe and
North-America. For the first time we received over 600 manuscripts
from Europe (611), which is now about the same as the total
number of submissions during the years 1992–1995.
Fig. 2 also shows that the percentual decrease in submissions from
North-America (
Fig. 1) results from the increase in submissions
from other parts of the world, because the absolute number of
submissions from North-America is stable at about 250 per year
over the last 8 years.
Figs. 3 and 4
show that the increase
in submissions from Europe was not similar for different European
countries. Germany contributed most manuscripts in 1998 and
1999 with the United Kingdom at the second place with about
120 manuscripts over the last three years (
Fig. 3). Also, the
number of submissions from the Netherlands increased steadily
since 1993 (
Fig. 3). During the last two years also the number
of submissions from France, Italy and Spain increased (
Fig. 4).
|
Editorial process
|
|---|
Although the Editorial Team no longer aims at a further reduction
of the time needed for a first decision on a manuscript,
Fig. 5 shows that this time dropped from 27.6 days in 1996 to 25.8
days in 1999. Our reviewers in the first place, but also our
office managers, Nicole Mommertz and Yvonne Zwiers, are responsible
for this success, which is even more impressive when the increase
in the total number of submissions from 733 in 1996 to 1100
in 1999 is considered.
Fig. 6 shows that 50% of the decisions
is made within 25 days (dashed line) and that after one month
82% of the manuscripts has been decided on (dotted line). These
numbers also show minor improvements over the last years
[5].
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
|
Fig. 6 Cumulative percentage of first editorial decisions as a function of the days after sending out of manuscripts to the reviewers. Half of the decisions are made after 25 days (dashed line). After one month 82% of the decisions has been made (dotted line).
|
|
|
Impact factor
|
|---|
Fig. 7 shows the official impact factors for
Cardiovascular Research as communicated by the Institute for Scientific Information
(solid line) and our own estimates over the last years (dotted
line). For 1999 we predict an impact factor of 3.44 (see also
[6]) and for the year 2000 we anticipate to exceed the 4.00
border for the first time in the history of the journal. The
difference between the solid and dotted lines give an impression
of the accuracy of these numbers, although it should be emphasized
that this accuracy only applies to the prediction for 1999.
The prediction for 2000 is based on counts over the period January–May
2000 with extrapolation to the end of the year. Whatever the
exact values will be, we continue to invite our authors to send
us their very best work, because it is obvious that
Cardiovascular Research is successful in bridging the gap with the top in the
cardiovascular category of the Science Citation Index.
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
|
Fig. 7 Impact factor for Cardiovascular Research as communicated by the Institute for Scientific Information (solid line). The dotted line shows our own estimates for the years 1999 and 2000. The accuracy of these predictions may be appreciated from the differences between the dotted and solid lines for the years 1995–1998 (see text for explanation).
|
|
Finally,
Fig. 8 shows the impact factors of the individual issues
of the journal since April 1996. The abscissa shows the months
of publication with numbers for regular issues and abbreviations
for spotlight issues. The issues on Mechanoelectrical Feedback
(MEL), Microcirculation (MIC) and Calcium and Heart Failure
(CAL) were more successful than the averaged impact factor of
3.05 over the years 1996–1998 (dashed line). Also, all
issues published since July 1997 had an equal or higher impact
factor than the average of the last years. It is obvious that
we will maintain our policy with respect to our spotlight issues
and we cordially invite you to submit your best work when a
new spotlight issue relevant to your specialty is launched.
View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
|
Fig. 8 ‘Impact factors’ of individual issues of Cardiovascular Research. ‘9604’ indicates the April 1996 issue, which was the first issue with papers handled by the present team. Since September 1996 the issues were exclusively handled by the present team. Asterisks indicate spotlight issues: MEL: Mechanoelectrical Feedback (July 1996); MIC: Microcirculation (October 1996); DIA: Diabetes mellitus and the Cardiovascular System (April 1997); GEN: Gene Therapy in the Cardiovascular System (September 1997); CAL: Calcium and Heart Failure (February 1998). See text for explanation. The dashed line indicates the averaged impact factor of the journal from 1996 till 1998.
|
|
|
Notes
|
|---|
1 Experimental and Molecular Cardiology Group.
2 On behalf of the Editorial Team.
|
References
|
|---|
- Opthof T. On behalf of the Editorial Team of Cardiovascular Research. Submissions, publications and reviewers from Europe: focus on Spain. Cardiovasc Res (1999) 43:265–267.[Free Full Text]
- Opthof T. On behalf of the Editorial Team of Cardiovascular Research. Geographical shifts in submissions. Cardiovasc Res (1998) 38:1–2.[Free Full Text]
- Opthof T. On behalf of the Editorial Team of Cardiovascular Research. Increase in submissions from Europe — from where and since when? Cardiovasc Res (1998) 39:261–262.[Free Full Text]
- Opthof T. On behalf of the Editorial Team of Cardiovascular Research. Geographical shifts in publications. Cardiovasc Res (1999) 42:1–2.[Free Full Text]
- Opthof T. On behalf of the Editorial Team of Cardiovascular Research. Submissions, acceptance rate, rapid review system and impact factor. Cardiovasc Res (1999) 41:1–4.[Free Full Text]
- Opthof T., Janse M.J. Reducing the backlog and improving the impact. Cardiovasc Res (1999) 43:1.[Free Full Text]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
Top
Submissions
Editorial process
