Authors' Criteria for Selecting Journals
(JAMA. 1994;272:163-164)
Erica Frank, MD, MPH
Objective.--To evaluate authors' methods of selecting
the journals to which they submit manuscripts.
Design and Setting.--In 1992, all of the active clinical and
research faculty of Stanford University School of Medicine (n=479),
Palo Alto, Calif, were sent up to three mailings of a one-page
questionnaire.
Results.--Our response rate was 63.7% (n=305). On a scale
of 1 (unimportant) to 6 (very important), respondents ranked factors
affecting initial manuscript submission to a journal in the following
descending order (mean values are reported): the journal's prestige,
5.2; the makeup of the journal's readership, 4.8; whether the journal
usually publishes articles on the topic, 4.8; the likelihood of
manuscript acceptance, 4.4; the size of journal circulation, 4.1; the
rapidity of manuscript turnaround, 4.1; the existence of good editors,
3.9; the likelihood of useful reviewer suggestions, 3.4; a history of
having published in that journal previously, 3.4; colleagues'
recommendations, 3.1; the likelihood of useful biostatistical
suggestions, 2.6; the existence of editors who are personally known to
the author, 2.1; and the likelihood of press attention, 1.9. For
subsequent submissions, the most important factors were the likelihood
of manuscript acceptance (5.0) and whether the journal usually
publishes articles on the topic (4.7).
Conclusions.-- Journal prestige, most frequently
published journal topics, and readership composition were the most
important factors for initial manuscript submissions. For subsequent
submissions, more pragmatic variables, such as likelihood of
acceptance, gained importance. These findings should help editors make
their journals more attractive to potential authors.
(JAMA. 1994;272:163-164)
One of the most fundamental questions
concerning medical journals is the way in which authors select the
journals to which they submit their manuscripts; this is also one of
the least studied questions. While authors have evidence from reviews
and editors' letters to evaluate how a manuscript was accepted for
publication or rejected, editors have only heretofore been able to
guess the reasons why particular journals are chosen for manuscript
submission. In this article, I examine authors' criteria for selecting
journals.
METHODS
A mailing list containing a 100% sample of the Stanford University
School of Medicine (Palo Alto, Calif) active clinical and research
faculty was obtained from the Office of the Dean. A survey instrument
was developed de novo, with pilot testing conducted on a convenience
sample of Stanford and non-Stanford medical faculty, including both
physicians and nonphysicians. An even-numbered scale was chosen to
force nonmidpoint responses. Three mailings were sent out via campus
mail between May and October 1992. All participants received an initial
letter and a return envelope with the survey instrument. The letter
explained the study's structure and the importance of their role and
thanked them for their time. Nonresponders at 2 months received a
follow-up letter with another survey instrument and a return envelope.
Those who were still nonresponders at 4 months received a telephone
call via their secretaries, voice mail, or answering machines to let
them know that a third survey instrument had been mailed. This third
mailing was the last attempt to contact nonrespondents.
The one-page questionnaire had three question categories. The first
category requested demographic data, including respondent's age,
gender, degree type, title, track (clinical vs tenure), primary
research area, specialty, and presence/absence of a subspecialty (if
the respondent had an MD degree). In the second category, respondents
were asked to indicate the extent to which each of the following
factors influences their decision to submit an original article to a
journal (factors are listed in the order in which they were listed in
the questionnaire): prestige, rapidity of turnaround, likelihood of
acceptance, existence of good editor(s), editor(s) personally known,
having published in the journal before, recommendation of colleagues,
journal usually publishes articles on the topic, size of journal
circulation, makeup of journal circulation, useful reviewer
suggestions, useful biostatistical suggestions, likelihood of press
attention, or other criteria (three blank lines were available for
additional factors to be written in). Respondents were asked to judge
each factor on a scale of 1 (unimportant) to 6 (very important) in two
situations: (1) for an initial submission and (2) for a subsequent
submission (after a manuscript had been rejected elsewhere). Means were
calculated for each factor. The third question category requested a
description of their publication practices, including queries regarding
the last three journals to which they submitted manuscripts, the
journals in which their three most recent publications appeared, the
journals they read most regularly, the number of first (principal) and
coauthorships they have had in the last 5 years, and the mean number of
submissions made per manuscript accepted.
RESULTS
As seen in the Table, our sample had diverse demographic and professional characteristics. The
Figure demonstrates the relative ranking of various
author selection criteria. There is a clear hierarchy of importance,
with mean responses ranging from ratings of 1.8 (with a rating of 1
being "unimportant") to 5.2 (with a maximum possible rating of 6).
Responders and nonresponders differed little by gender, degree, or
academic rank (Table). There were few differences in answers of
respondents to the first, second, and third mailings (not shown). All
three waves of mailings produced the same top-rated response (prestige
for initial submissions and high likelihood of acceptance for
subsequent submissions), the same four top-rated responses, and the
same two lowest-rated responses. Similarly, respondents with MD,
MD/PhD, and PhD degrees had the same top-rated responses (again,
prestige and likelihood of acceptance), the same three to five
top-rated responses, and the same four lowest-rated responses, and men
and women respondents had the same top-rated response, the same
four top-rated responses, and the same three lowest-rated responses.
COMMENT
For first submissions, it appears most important to try
to influence or impress colleagues in one's own field. Highly
prestigious journals that frequently publish related articles and that
target readers interested in one's work are the initial top-rated
choice. While the top-rated criteria for initial submission remain
important for subsequent submissions, several more practical factors
gain prominence. Acceptance odds becomes the most important variable,
and turnaround time, having published previously in a given journal,
and recommendations of colleagues also become more important. These
authors do not appear to believe or are not concerned that their
manuscripts benefit substantially from review. Editor quality and
likelihood of good statistical or other types of reviews were not
considered very important reasons to initially or subsequently submit
manuscripts to a journal. None of these factors seem to vary greatly by
degree, gender, or rapidity of response to our questionnaire.
This study has several limitations. While it is improbable that
individuals would deliberately misrepresent their opinions, some may
not fully comprehend their or others' motivations for publication in a
given journal. For example, several respondents were offended by the
idea that the possibility of press attention could affect journal
choice, while many others indicated that it had some (though usually
minor) influence on their choices. Second, the survey population
included only one private, high-quality, medical school faculty, in
California. Criteria may vary by institution, and they are likely to
vary by discipline. Third, our response rate was not high; however,
respondents and nonrespondents did not appear to differ substantially
on the criteria for which we had data, and stratified data did not show
wide variations across strata.
The study of peer review has the potential for major
consequences. Even minor changes in the art of peer review can affect
every subsequently published manuscript. As editors learn more
about the needs and desires of potential authors (through such
techniques as author surveys), journals can become more responsive to
potential authors' needs and can improve the areas in which their
journals are weakest or have the greatest potential for cost-effective
change. This may improve the match between journals and authors and may
make peer review a less difficult or contentious experience for
authors, reviewers, and editors.
From the Departments of Family and Preventive Medicine and Medicine,
Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga.
Presented in part at the Second International Congress on Peer Review
in Biomedical Publication, Chicago, Ill, September 10, 1993.
Darius Jatulis, MS, and Helena Kraemer, PhD, Stanford
University School of Medicine, provided biostatistical consultation.
I wish to thank Rosemary W. McNaughton, Elizabeth Ball, Marilyn
Winkleby, PhD, Pamela McNaughton, and Randall White, MD, for their
invaluable help in designing and completing this study.
Reprint requests to the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine,
Emory University School of Medicine, 69 Butler St SE, Atlanta, GA
30303-3219 (Dr Frank).
Table of Contents
