The Magnifying Glass
When considering the program evaluation and quality improvement (QI) cycle for any process improvement, data collection and evaluation are essential. In measuring the journal's performance, we use both quantitative and qualitative inputs. The qualitative measures emanate from the editorial esthetics, our reputation, and the significance of our professional activities in teaching and learning, using multimedia editorial delivery.
The journal of Advances in Skin & Wound Care (ASWC) continues to be one of the most highly cited journals in our field. In 2011, ASWC made its debut into the current biomedical Journal Citation Reports by Thomson Reuters, with an initial impact factor (IF) ranking of 1.438. With this first IF rating (IFR), we also ranked 13th of 97 journals in the report's "Science" category! On August 18, 2014, the journal's IF ranking increased to 1.634.1 The IF is a measurement of the frequency by which an article in a scholarly journal is cited in a particular year. For example, in 2013, there were 134 IF cites and 82 citable items in ASWC, resulting in an impact score of 1.634. The impact score is considered by many to be a measure of a journal's influence and prestige. Because wound care is interprofessional, it is therefore appropriate to compare ourselves with other journals that also cover wound care topics.
Categorically, among dermatology journals (N = 61), ASWC ranks 46 in "Total Cites Rankings" and 28 in IFR; of surgically related journals (n = 202), ASWC Total Cites Rankings is 137, and the IFR is 85, and among nursing journals (n = 106), ASWC has a Total Cites Rankings of 34 and an IFR ranking of 20. In fact, our company publishes 5 of the top 25 ranked journals in the "Nursing" category of the 104 nursing titles represented.2
Our readers provide input to the process as well; some of the highlights of a recent readership survey conducted in August 2014 make the following observations:
Eighty-four percent read at least half of every issue; 81% have a need to learn more about debridement methods, with more than three-fourths of our readership highly interested in the topic of "bacterial bioburden"; 78% state that the journal assists them in their practice's decision making; readers rate the overall publication a 4.3 on a 5-point scale; and the majority feel the credibility rating of the journal's information to be excellent.
The Peer-Review Process
We rely on our collegial team of authors, peer reviewers, editorial staff, internal education consultants who oversee the continuing education (CE) process, and the leadership of Wolters Kluwer Health. In September 2014, we had one of the most well-attended and productive editorial board meetings in recent memory. In my mind, this meeting exemplified the "plan-do-act-study cycle" of the continuous QI. The discussions began around metrics, which are made readily available through our robust online Editorial Manager (EM) program.
We also measure the total number of manuscripts processed. For 2013, 116 manuscripts were processed. Of those, 74 were ultimately accepted after undergoing rounds of peer review with revisions, 42 were rejected after peer review, and a few were triaged for not meeting the journal's criteria. The tempo of the editorial process has significantly hastened, again with credit to the editorial team, EM, and the peer reviewers. We track "time-to-decision" trends, and in 2013, the number of days from initial manuscript submission to final disposition was 71.5 days.
The Peer Reviewers
The peer reviewers do incredibly important work in this process. The EM process tracks metrics for the time allotted for a peer reviewer to provide feedback, usually 7 to 10 days. The reviewers are scored by several parameters, including days to review and feedback credibility (are the decisions matched with a cogent and helpful narrative?). Research shows that the reviewer on a given manuscript should spend no more than 2 hours in conducting the review.1 More than 2 hours diminishes the quality of the review. Our peer reviewers earn CE credits for achieving a peer-review score greater than 70 on their reviews. For each manuscript, we assign a minimum of 3 peer reviewers with expertise in the subject matter. In my opinion, we have the best peer reviewers in the world! Each and every reviewer contributes substantially to enhancing the quality of the final published manuscript. The research published on the subject of peer reviewers indicates that the quality of the journal and the review process depend on having reviewers with statistical and epidemiologic expertise on the panel.3
Although we recently recruited new reviewers in health economics and ethics, we are interested in additional candidates with expertise in nutrition, surgery, hyperbaric oxygen, biostatistics, and QI methodology. Please submit your resumes to mailto:[email protected].
Richard "Sal" Salcido, MD, EdD
References