Brain, Vol. 122, No. 1, 1,
January 1999
© 1999 Oxford University Press
Editorial |
A message from the Editor
A year has passed since I took over the Editorship of Brain, making this issue an appropriate one in which to consider how the journal has been faring. The journal maintained a high impact factor for 1997 at 5.4, only marginally lower than for 1996 (5.7), holding its ranking as second among clinical neurology journals publishing original research. But many would argue that this evaluation, based on the citations in the current year of papers published in the previous two years, should not be regarded as the sole criterion of a journal's standing. The frequent quoting of a `methods' paper, for example, can distort this form of assessment (Brain, incidentally, explicitly discourages this type of paper).
Eugene Garfield, who with the late Irving H. Sher devised the current impact factor for scientific journals (Garfield and Sher, 1963
), has now compiled a 7-year and a 15-year impact factor (Garfield, 1998). This is based on papers published in 1989–1990 and 1981–1982 and their citations from 1989–1995 and from 1981–1995, respectively. Pure review journals were excluded. Brain's 7-year and 15-year rankings were 37th and 13th of all journals analysed (the only `neurology' journal with a higher ranking at 15 years was the Journal of Neuroscience, which was 12th). Garfield emphasizes that this evaluation is also potentially vulnerable to distortions. Nevertheless such a high ranking argues strongly that many Brain articles are regarded as authoritative, if not definitive. The Editor hopes, on behalf of Brain authors, that grant-giving bodies and University assessment panels take a similar view.
Although the contents of a journal will always be largely dependent on what is submitted and its scientific quality, I thought it would be interesting to analyse the types of papers we have been accepting over the last year. The proportion of papers whose outcome concerned `normal function or structure' was 33%. These were usually based on studies of healthy subjects, and the majority involved functional imaging. This compares with a figure of 30% for studies aimed at elucidating disease aetiology. Most of the remaining papers focused on the effects of the disease process on nervous system function, with relatively few (9%) being concerned with treatment. Is that balance appropriate for `A Journal of Neurology', as Brain has always described itself? It is certainly the case that traditionally Brain has published papers on normal function, and that these have added hugely to our understanding of nervous system function. Moreover, in the case of a relatively new technique such as functional imaging, one accepts that basic studies are needed. Nevertheless, we hope to see the balance shifting modestly in favour of disease aetiology and treatment over the coming years.
Finally, Brain has continued to be an `international' journal, not just through representation on the Editorial Board but also by the number of overseas papers published in 1998: 36% of these came from Europe other than the UK, 19% from North America and 10% from the rest of the world. We have maintained the relatively short interval between final acceptance and publication; the average interval for 1998 was 4.5 months. The Editorial Board remains, as ever, very grateful to its hard-working Reviewers, whose names were listed in the December issue.
References
Garfield E. Long-term vs. short-term journal impact: does it matter? Scientist 1998; 12: 11–12.
Garfield E, Sher IH. New factors in the evaluation of of scientific literature through citation indexing. American Documentation 1963; 14: 195–201.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||