OBJECTIVE: To explore journal quality as perceived by clinicians and researchers in clinical neurology. METHODS: A survey was conducted from August 2003 to January 2004. Ratings for 41 selected clinical neurology journals were obtained from 254 members of the World Federation of Neurology (1,500 solicited; response rate 17%). Participants provided demographic information and rated each journal on a 5-point Likert scale. Average ratings for all journals were compared with the ISI's journal impact factors. Ratings for each journal were also compared across geographic regions and respondent publication productivity. RESULTS: The top 5 journals were rated much more highly than the others, with mean ratings greater than 4. Mean journal ratings were highly correlated with journal impact factors (r = 0.67). Most of the top 10 journal ratings were consistent across the subgroups of geographic regions and journal paper productivity. However, significant differences among the different geographical regions and respondent productivity groups were also found for a few journals. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide valuable insight on how neurological experts perceive journals in clinical neurology. These results will likely aid researchers and clinicians in identifying potentially desirable research outlets and indicate journal status for editors. Likewise, biomedical librarians may use these results for serials collection development.
OBJECTIVE: To explore journal quality as perceived by clinicians and researchers in clinical neurology. METHODS: A survey was conducted from August 2003 to January 2004. Ratings for 41 selected clinical neurology journals were obtained from 254 members of the World Federation of Neurology (1,500 solicited; response rate 17%). Participants provided demographic information and rated each journal on a 5-point Likert scale. Average ratings for all journals were compared with the ISI's journal impact factors. Ratings for each journal were also compared across geographic regions and respondent publication productivity. RESULTS: The top 5 journals were rated much more highly than the others, with mean ratings greater than 4. Mean journal ratings were highly correlated with journal impact factors (r = 0.67). Most of the top 10 journal ratings were consistent across the subgroups of geographic regions and journal paper productivity. However, significant differences among the different geographical regions and respondent productivity groups were also found for a few journals. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide valuable insight on how neurological experts perceive journals in clinical neurology. These results will likely aid researchers and clinicians in identifying potentially desirable research outlets and indicate journal status for editors. Likewise, biomedical librarians may use these results for serials collection development.
Authors: Anton Pottegård; Maija Bruun Haastrup; Tore Bjerregaard Stage; Morten Rix Hansen; Kasper Søltoft Larsen; Peter Martin Meegaard; Line Haugaard Vrdlovec Meegaard; Henrik Horneberg; Charlotte Gils; Dorthe Dideriksen; Lise Aagaard; Anna Birna Almarsdottir; Jesper Hallas; Per Damkier Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-12-16