Metrics for original research articles in the AJR: From first submission to final publication

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 204, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 1152-1156

  Rosenkrantz, Andrew B ^a   Harisinghani, Mukesh ^b  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Journalism; Publication; Radiology research

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; EDITORIAL; HUMAN; MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTANCE; MANUSCRIPT REJECTION; MANUSCRIPT REVISION; MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEWER ALLOCATION TIME; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; TURNAROUND TIME; CLASSIFICATION; PEER REVIEW; PROCEDURES; RADIOLOGY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TIME; WORKFLOW; WORKLOAD; WRITING;

MANUSCRIPTS, MEDICAL; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; RADIOLOGY; TIME FACTORS; WORKFLOW; WORKLOAD; WRITING;

EID: 84937680730     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.13944     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Palese A, Coletti S, Dante A. Publication efficiency among the higher impact factor nursing journals in 2009: a retrospective analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 2013; 50:543-551
2. Cornelius JL. Reviewing the review process: identifying sources of delay. Australas Med J 2012; 5:26-29
3. Kljakovi?-Gaspi? M, Hren D, Marusi? A, Marusi? M. Peer review time: how late is late in a small medical journal? Arch Med Res 2003; 34:439-443
4. Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007; 61:9-12
5. Shelton JS, Beach J. Electronic manuscript submission and peer review. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry 2004; 6:232-233
6. Govender P, Buckley O, McAuley G, O'Brien J, Torreggiani WC. Does online submission of manuscripts improve efficiency? JBR-BTR 2008; 91:231-234
7. Schroeder TV, Beard JD. Web manuscript submission and tracking system for peer review: the journal moves with the time. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2002; 23:95-96
8. Heneberg P. Effects of print publication lag in dual format journals on scientometric indicators. PLoS ONE 2013; 8:e59877
9. Anderton S, Harvey L. Continuous publication: ready, set, cite. Br J Radiol 2013; 86:20130252
10. Berquist TH. Print versus online: the debate goes on. AJR 2010; 195:815-816
11. Labanaris AP, Vassiliadu AP, Polykandriotis E, Tjiawi J, Arkudas A, Horch RE. Impact factors and publication times for plastic surgery journals. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120:2076-2081
12. Soreide K, Winter DC. Global survey of factors influencing choice of surgical journal for manuscript submission. Surgery 2010; 147:475-480
13. Chew FS. Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR. AJR 1991; 156:627-632
14. American Roentgen Ray Society website. About AJR. www.arrs.org/Publications/AJR/about.aspx. Accessed October 12, 2014
15. Provenzale JM. Revising a manuscript: ten principles to guide success for publication. AJR 2010; 195:[web]W382-W387
16. American Roentgen Ray Society. AJR guidelines for authors: Rev 09.2014. www.arrs.org/uploadedFiles/ARRS/Publications/authorGuidelines.pdf. Accessed October 12, 2014
17. Berquist TH. Scientific integrity: has CrossCheck made a difference? AJR 2013; 201:703
18. Berquist TH. Submission to final decision: what can authors do to facilitate the process? AJR 2014; 202:1165
19. Provenzale JM. Ten principles to improve the likelihood of publication of a scientific manuscript. AJR 2007; 188:1179-1182
20. Kanne JP. The digital media revolution: what it means for the AJR. AJR 2011; 197:6-7
21. Hawkins CM, Duszak R, Rawson JV. Social media in radiology: early trends in Twitter microblogging at radiology's largest international meeting. J Am Coll Radiol 2014; 11:387-390