Abstract
IntroductionA crucial, yet subjective and non-evidence-based, decision for researchers is where to submit their original research manuscripts. The approach of submitting to journals in descending order of impact factor (IF) is a common but imperfect strategy. The validity of the IF as a measure of journal quality and significance is suspect, and a number of other journal impact scores have emerged, such that no one scale is universally accepted. Furthermore, practical considerations, such as likelihood of manuscript acceptance rates and times for decisions, may influence how authors prioritize journals. In this report, we sought to 1) review emergency medicine (EM) journal impact metrics, and 2) provide a comprehensive list of pertinent journal characteristics that may influence researchers’ choice of submission.MethodsWe systematically reviewed five impact metrics (IF, H Index, CiteScore, Source-Normalized Impact per Paper, and SCImago Journal Rank) and other relevant characteristics of 20 EM journals.ResultsWe found good to excellent agreement in ordinal rankings of four of the journal impact metrics, as measured by the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. The median acceptance rate for original research manuscripts in the EM category was 25% (interquartile range [IQR] 18, 31%), and the median initial decision time was 33 days (IQR 18, 56 days). Fourteen EM journals (70%) accepted brief reports, and 15 (75%) accepted case reports/images.ConclusionWe recommend replication, expansion, and formalization of this repository of information for EM investigators in a continuously updated, open-access forum sponsored by an independent organization.
Highlights
A crucial, yet subjective and non-evidence-based, decision for researchers is where to submit their original research manuscripts
We systematically reviewed five impact metrics (IF, H Index, CiteScore, Source-Normalized Impact per Paper, and SCImago Journal Rank) and other relevant characteristics of 20 EM journals
We found good to excellent agreement in ordinal rankings of four of the journal impact metrics, as measured by the Spearman rank correlation coefficient
Summary
A crucial, yet subjective and non-evidence-based, decision for researchers is where to submit their original research manuscripts. The validity of the IF as a measure of journal quality and significance is suspect, and a number of other journal impact scores have emerged, such that no one scale is universally accepted Practical considerations, such as likelihood of manuscript acceptance rates and times for decisions, may influence how authors prioritize journals. Many experts have questioned the validity of the IF as a measure of journal quality and influence.[2,3] a number of other journal impact scores have emerged, such that no one scale is universally accepted as the gold standard impact metric.[4,5] Beyond the limitations of relying on one or more impact metrics, researchers must consider the likelihood of acceptance, time until decision, reach of audience, and expected number of citations. The comments to authors after rejections may help improve subsequent submissions, reflexively submitting to high-prestige journals with low likelihood of acceptance can waste inordinate amounts of time for decisions and effort toward serial reformatting for particular journal requirements.[6,7,8] This futile effort can delay investigators
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
