<it>Implementation Science</it> six years on—our evolving scope and common reasons for rejection without review
<p>Abstract</p> <p><it>Implementation Science</it> has been published for six years and over that time has gone from receiving 100 articles in 2006 to receiving 354 in 2011; our impact factor has risen from 2.49 in June 2010 to 3.10 in June 2012. Whilst our article publ...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2012-07-01
|
| Series: | Implementation Science |
| Online Access: | http://www.implementationscience.com/content/7/1/71 |
| Summary: | <p>Abstract</p> <p><it>Implementation Science</it> has been published for six years and over that time has gone from receiving 100 articles in 2006 to receiving 354 in 2011; our impact factor has risen from 2.49 in June 2010 to 3.10 in June 2012. Whilst our article publication rate has also risen, it has risen much less slowly than our submission rate—we published 29 papers in 2006 and 134 papers in 2011 and we now publish only around 40 % of submissions. About one-half of submitted manuscripts are rejected without being sent out for peer review; it has become clear that there are a number of common issues that result in manuscripts being rejected at this stage. We hope that by publishing this editorial on our common reasons for rejection without peer review we can help authors to better judge the relevance of their papers to <it>Implementation Science</it>.</p> |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1748-5908 |