Implementation Science six years on—our evolving scope and common reasons for rejection without review
dc.contributor.author | Eccles, Martin P | |
dc.contributor.author | Foy, Robbie | |
dc.contributor.author | Sales, Anne | |
dc.contributor.author | Wensing, Michel | |
dc.contributor.author | Mittman, Brian | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2015-08-07T17:47:28Z | |
dc.date.available | 2015-08-07T17:47:28Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2012-07-27 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Implementation Science. 2012 Jul 27;7(1):71 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/112867 | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Abstract Implementation Science 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 Implementation Science. | |
dc.title | Implementation Science six years on—our evolving scope and common reasons for rejection without review | |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/112867/1/13012_2012_Article_494.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1186/1748-5908-7-71 | en_US |
dc.language.rfc3066 | en | |
dc.rights.holder | Eccles et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. | |
dc.date.updated | 2015-08-07T17:47:29Z | |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.