
Frances Neagley, CNMT, FSNMTS Editor, JNMT
While I was going over my report on the JNMT for the SNMTS Publications Committee, I got to thinking about how often I do these reports and how few people outside this small group really know about the process. My dear friend Miriam Miller, CNMT, FSNMTS, used to call it “preaching to the choir.” So I had the novel idea of sharing some of these numbers with the readers of the JNMT, or more precisely the readers of my editorials.
My most recent report examined the statistics for the years 2001 through 2009. In the past year, the JNMT received 71 submissions, which equals the previous high of 71 submissions in 2007 and is more than twice the low number of 31 in 2001. Unfortunately, only 5 of these submissions were continuing education articles, down from a high of 12 in 2007 and matching the previous low of 5 in 2001. I know this is a statistic that most JNMT readers already realize, since we are getting only 1 continuing education article in each issue lately. We are striving to find authors for continuing education articles so that we can return to the 2 articles an issue. In this current issue of JNMT, we are expanding our continuing education content by including the continuing education article of this month's JNM.
The acceptance rate for submissions in 2009 was 48%, which is pretty much customary. In 2001, the acceptance rate was 77%, and it was only 28% in both 2004 and 2005. The acceptance rate for this past year (like most years) can be a little misleading because it does not take into consideration the close to 25 submissions still out for review or revisions at the end of the reporting period. Nonetheless, it can be looked at as being fairly typical because the process can be somewhat protracted.
Although most of the submissions continue to come from North America, more come from Asia and Europe combined. In 2009, there were 30 submissions from North America, compared with a high of 39 in 2007 and a low of 20 in 2004. There were 21 submissions from Asia in 2009, and this is consistent with the past several years, but the 17 submissions from Europe are a significant increase over all previous years.
The average time from receipt of a manuscript to acceptance in 2009 was 5 months. This is slightly up from the previous 2 years but lower than the earlier years. The time from receipt to rejection has averaged 2.5 months for the past 4 years, which is improved over the prior 5 years. It takes approximately 2 months from acceptance to publication, so that the receipt-to-publication time is around 7 months.
The time from the receipt of the submission to the beginning of the reviewer search has significantly improved over the years. It has gone from a high of 30 days in 2002 to a low of a single day in 2008 and was 3 days in 2009. Reviewers are taking an average of 14 days to complete their reviews, which is up from both 2006 and 2007 but down from the high of 36 days in 2002. The Communications staff in the Reston office, along with the HighWire process, has helped to increase our efficiency in moving manuscripts and reviewers through the selection process.
However, the reviewer search process continues to be somewhat problematic. In 2009, I made 451 requests for reviewers in order to get 127 acceptances. Only 117 of those contacted declined the reviewer request while 179 did not respond at all. I continue to be extremely appreciative of each and every technologist, physician, scientist, pharmacist, and educator who agrees to review submissions for the JNMT.
I guess that is just about enough numbers for now, even though I always find them interesting and certainly an intriguing look into the publication of the JNMT. As for any set of numbers or statistics, it is a way of looking at how we can improve and, hopefully, how we have improved. When I first became editor of the JNMT, I hoped to increase the number of pages in the JNMT, but we have yet to reach even 100 pages. I have only 2 more years to reach my goal, and I hope that some of you reading this will be part of the fulfillment of that goal.
At the SNM Conjoint Mid-Winter Meetings in Albuquerque, I reached out to ICANL, NMTCB, and the NCOR to have regular updates in the JNMT. The president and president-elect of the SNMTS customarily have submissions, and frequently there is a report from the JRCNMT. I am also soliciting further invited commentaries along with discussing possible ideas for continuing education articles with some of the attendees. I anticipate we will have more Procedure Guidelines in future issues because there have been significant updates and revisions.
So here is your March edition of the JNMT; I hope you find it informative and educational. As always, please feel free to contact me at any time with any of your ideas—fneagley{at}pacbell.net.