Abstract
findings (Royle et al., 2013). Similarly, literature reviews After we learned of the new Impact Factor for the APJCP in June 2013, the Chief Editors wrote a short editorial ‘New APJCP Impact Factor for 2012 is 1.271 - Time to Make a Major Effort to Break Through the 2.0 Barrier’ (Moore et al., 2013). In addition to explaining the necessity for a 50% increase in formatting charges, we made an appeal to the authors using the APJCP to cite recent articles from its pages in a cooperative effort to maintain and hopefully increase the Impact Factor (IF). We are well aware that the IF is one element in a journal’s ability to attract good quality papers and hence contributes to long-term survival (Sonuga-Barke, 2012; van der Wall, 2012), and assume that it is influential in choice of the APJCP. However, we feel that our emphasis should be on allowing as many papers as possible to be published, while taking into account that universities will instruct researchers to publish only in journals with an IF above a certain level. It is thus a question of balance, with the submitting authors themselves playing a major role. However, looking at the papers that were published in the last six issues of 2013 we must admit to having largely failed in our aims. Very few authors actually complied with our request, and the vast majority of papers included zero APJCP references from the years 2011 and 2012, so that we are very likely faced with the opposite of our hopes - a decrease in the IF, perhaps below the crucially important figure of 1.0 which will make it difficult for many scientists to select the APJCP for publication of their work. If that is the actual case we must apologise. We do not understand how an author can choose a journal in which in which there are no relevant papers worthy of citation. As Chief Editors we must try to be consistent and give some advantage to those who actually do contribute to maintaining our IF. and, conversely, articles appearing in high-IF journals
Highlights
After we learned of the new Impact Factor for the APJCP in June 2013, the Chief Editors wrote a short editorial ‘New APJCP Impact Factor for 2012 is 1.271 Time to Make a Major Effort to Break Through the 2.0 Barrier’ (Moore et al, 2013)
In addition to explaining the necessity for a 50% increase in formatting charges, we made an appeal to the authors using the APJCP to cite recent articles from its pages in a cooperative effort to maintain and hopefully increase the Impact Factor (IF)
We are well aware that the IF is one element in a journal’s ability to attract good quality papers and contributes to long-term survival (Sonuga-Barke, 2012; van der Wall, 2012), and assume that it is influential in choice of the APJCP
Summary
After we learned of the new Impact Factor for the APJCP in June 2013, the Chief Editors wrote a short editorial ‘New APJCP Impact Factor for 2012 is 1.271 Time to Make a Major Effort to Break Through the 2.0 Barrier’ (Moore et al, 2013). In addition to explaining the necessity for a 50% increase in formatting charges, we made an appeal to the authors using the APJCP to cite recent articles from its pages in a cooperative effort to maintain and hopefully increase the Impact Factor (IF). Very few authors complied with our request, and the vast majority of papers included zero APJCP references from the years 2011 and 2012, so that we are very likely faced with the opposite of our hopes - a decrease in the IF, perhaps below the crucially important figure of 1.0 which will make it difficult for many scientists to select the APJCP for publication of their work.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
