4.5 Article

Fate of submitted manuscripts rejected from the American journal of neuroradiology: Outcomes and commentary

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 28, 期 8, 页码 1430-1434

出版社

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A0766

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the publication fate of submissions previously rejected from the American Journal of Neuroradiology (AJNR) to provide guidance to authors who receive rejection notices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective search by using MEDLINE of all submissions rejected from AJNR in 2004 was performed to identify subsequently published manuscripts. The fate of subsequently published manuscripts was analyzed as a function of submission type (major study, technical note, or case report), publication delay, publishing journal type (neuroradiology, general radiology, or clinical neuroscience journal), impact factor, publication volume, and circulation volume. RESULTS: Of the 554 rejected submissions to AJNR, 315 (56%) were subsequently published in 115 different journals, with the journal Neuroradiology publishing the greatest number of articles (37 t12%] of 315). The mean publication delay was 15.8 +/- 7.5 months. Major studies were more likely than case reports to be subsequently published (P =.034), but all 3 subtypes were published at rates greater than 50%. Radiologic journals collectively published approximately 60% of subsequent publications, whereas neurosurgery and neurology journals published 27% of rejected manuscripts. The mean impact factor of journals subsequently publishing rejected manuscripts was 1.8 +/- 1.3 (AJNR = 2.5), and 24 (7.5%) manuscripts were subsequently published in journals with higher impact factors than AJNR. CONCLUSIONS: These findings should give hope to authors receiving a rejection from AJNR, because greater than 50% of articles rejected from AJNR are subsequently published within 2-3 years, irrespective of publication type, into high-quality journals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据