For the last time!

Abstract

This will be my last Editorial for ANZJOG. Four years seem to have gone very quickly, but I can look back over this time with a great deal of satisfaction. As I foreshadowed at the end of the last Editorial, the Impact Factor (IF) has risen again to 1.316 and the journal has also increased its ranking to 46 of 69. This is a great achievement given the nature of our journal and the types of articles that we publish, focussing very much on general O&G with clinical research being at the forefront. Impact factors are calculated based on the numbers of citations over the last year for articles published in the two previous years. In some branches of medicine, there is often very rapid translation into numerous citations. Also, with some highly specialised journals, there is a large amount of ‘self-citing’ as the field is very narrow and a much higher likelihood that a related article will cite one previously published. A general journal will sometimes publish articles that will be cited for many years into the future, but which will not be taken into account when the IF is calculated. We do still have some way to go to reach the average IF of Wiley-Blackwell’s journals, which currently stands at 2.05. The annual report for ANZJOG tells us that last year we published 162 articles (including Case Reports and Letters) out of well over 500 submitted, which represents an acceptance rate of about 28%. There were over 86 000 full text downloads of articles, and over 459 000 abstracts were accessed! These articles came from 29 different countries, reflecting the truly international nature of ANZJOG. Australian & New Zealand authors contributed 108 articles (66.5%). There has been a significant shift in the time that I have been in this position. When I started, it was proving quite hard to fill each issue with publishable material. Now, it is getting much easier and in some cases, the time to publication is longer than I would like. Unfortunately, this means that we do now have to reject many articles that are of a publishable standard as a result of lack of space. Contrary to a popular view that I have heard expressed from many quarters, we do not have any publication bias towards local material, nor should we. All articles are considered on their merits regardless of where they originate, and from which professional group they have come. I have chosen another article myself for this issue. It is the turn of the first decade of this century and I have selected one from right at the beginning of the decade. One of the co-authors is Caroline Crowther from Adelaide who remains one of our most prolific O&G academics with a truly international profile. The article is not one which changed practice, but is certainly of important historical interest as it reflects the views of the Fellowship on screening for group B streptococcus (GBS) at that time. This survey shows that the Fellowship was almost split down the middle in favour of either screening or a ‘treat by risk factors’ approach. Even today, despite two very definite College statements, it is evident that the screening approach is not by any means universal, and in some cases, treatment does not follow in the face of risk factors. The problem of what to do about GBS remains one of the vexed questions in modern obstetrics. Finally, I thank all the people who have helped to make this venture a success. My Editorial Board (past and present) are invaluable and I thank them personally for all their hard work. The staff of College House and those at Wiley-Blackwell who turn my decisions into published material have all been wonderful. Finally, I thank all the reviewers who do this as a ‘labour of love’. We have a very small pool to select from and I am conscious that I am often asking people who are already over-committed to take on just one more thing! Your work is very much appreciated and I hope that all of you will continue to support our new Editor-in-Chief, Professor Jan Dickinson, to whom I wish every success in her new role.