| |  From the Editor
How can we improve the Journal of Swine Health and
Production?
We hope that the Journal of Swine Health and Production (JSHAP) provides an important source of information for you. As it arrives in
your mailbox, JSHAP is the cumulative work
of many people over many months. We realise that there is always room for
improvement, as with any professional activity.
The JSHAP staff participate in a conference call after every issue has been sent
to press. This is our opportunity to find solutions to current problems and
brainstorm about how we can make the journal even better for you, the reader. In addition,
at the AASV Annual Meeting, the Editorial Board, the ancillary article editors, and
the staff of JSHAP meet to discuss ideas on how to improve the functioning and
quality of the journal. Each year, changes are made to the review process, the
journal itself, or both, in response to these meetings.
Over the past year, we prepared and submitted a report to the literature
selection technical review committee of the
National Library of Medicine, anticipating that
JSHAP would be selected as one of the journals listed with
Index Medicus (MEDLINE). Unfortunately, our
application for indexing was rejected. Approximately 13,500 biomedical journals
are published throughout the world. Index
Medicus lists 4500 titles. Only 25 to 30% of titles submitted for review are
selected for indexing. A title must receive an
overall score of 4 (out of 5) to be included in
the index. We received a score of 2, which means that in 2 years we are eligible
to submita second application for re-consideration by the journal review team.
The review panel examined four recent
JSHAP issues and scored the journal in various categories on a scale of 0 to
5 (where 5 was the best score). The two broad categories considered were
quality and importance of the journal. In most categories that described quality,
JSHAP rated well, receiving an overall quality
score of 3.5. Our journal received a rating of 4 (excellent) for clinical research, authors
and institutions represented, and editorial board quality. The reviewers
commented positively on the fact that the journal
is peer reviewed. The journal was rated as good (3) in the areas of review articles,
basic research, and case reports, editorials, and ancillary articles. However, the
journal received a rating of 2 (moderate) in production quality, which included
layout, printing, binding, graphics, and number and location of advertisements. The
specific quality issues were not made clear; however, they did express concern
about the advertisements interrupting the text of the papers.
The reviewers considered the journal to be of moderate overall importance. The
good news was that the reviewers felt the journal was of very high importance to
clinicians in the field (score of 4) and highly
important to researchers, allied health professionals, and students (score of 3). They
viewed the journal as only moderately important (score of 2) for clinicians in fields
other than swine health management, and for educators, administrators, and policy
makers. The only additional comment was that
JSHAP was a peer-reviewed journal.
In conclusion, the reviewers felt that the journal provided excellent clinical
research, written by excellent authors from
excellent institutions and had an editorial board
of excellent quality. Finally, the journal was perceived as having very high
importance for the clinician in the field. Perhaps
we should celebrate the fact that we have indeed succeeded in these areas.
Certainly there are some changes we can make in response to this external
review. However, it is also important that we understand how can we improve
JSHAP for you, our readers. If you have
recommendations to improve the journal, please send
us an e-mail or letter. Our contact information is on the inside front cover
of each issue. Over the next few months, we hope to send a survey to you asking
for your
input. Please help us by completing the survey. Together we will enhance
JSHAP for the benefit of us all.
--Cate Dewey
|