ABSTRACT
Four Years Reports of "Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association" during 2001 to 2005 were evaluated by 18 Editorial Board of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association. We investigated the articles to specific fields and rejection rate etc. by different section chiefs. Although several problems concerning review time duration and rejection guideline issues indicated but generally all reviewer processes proved relatively clear and concise criteria. Through these objective and systematic evaluation processes, "Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association" will develop a good journal.
Subject(s)
Evaluation Studies as TopicABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: How dose the Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association reconcile both the essential companion in clinical practice and the leading academic journal of general psychiatry? METHODS: I have been involving 2 projects of the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP), the leading international journal of general psychiatry. The first is a comparison between papers that are seen by referees who are willing for their names to be closed to the authors of previous papers and those who do not wish their names to be closed. The second involves the rejection rates and long-term outcome of papers submitted from low and middle income countries (LAMI). RESULTS: Many referees of BJP were supportive of disclosure but not so much when it comes to the bad news. LAMI are contributing well to the psychiatric literature, though conclusions from the results can only be tentative in view of the relative small numbers. CONCLUSION: The BJP showed me that good journalism in an academic publication is not oxymoron. The criterion of the originality and the scientific reliability should remain uncompromised at any time and these should remain the clearest guides. I also would like our journal to be more excellence in clinical communication.
Subject(s)
Humans , Disclosure , Friends , Journalism , PublicationsABSTRACT
Four Years Reports of "Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association" during 2001 to 2005 were evaluated by 18 Editorial Board of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association. We investigated the articles to specific fields and rejection rate etc. by different section chiefs. Although several problems concerning review time duration and rejection guideline issues indicated but generally all reviewer processes proved relatively clear and concise criteria. Through these objective and systematic evaluation processes, "Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association" will develop a good journal.
Subject(s)
Evaluation Studies as TopicABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: How dose the Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association reconcile both the essential companion in clinical practice and the leading academic journal of general psychiatry? METHODS: I have been involving 2 projects of the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP), the leading international journal of general psychiatry. The first is a comparison between papers that are seen by referees who are willing for their names to be closed to the authors of previous papers and those who do not wish their names to be closed. The second involves the rejection rates and long-term outcome of papers submitted from low and middle income countries (LAMI). RESULTS: Many referees of BJP were supportive of disclosure but not so much when it comes to the bad news. LAMI are contributing well to the psychiatric literature, though conclusions from the results can only be tentative in view of the relative small numbers. CONCLUSION: The BJP showed me that good journalism in an academic publication is not oxymoron. The criterion of the originality and the scientific reliability should remain uncompromised at any time and these should remain the clearest guides. I also would like our journal to be more excellence in clinical communication.
Subject(s)
Humans , Disclosure , Friends , Journalism , PublicationsABSTRACT
To develop into a good jounal, it takes constant and consistent time and the efforts. "Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association" has been tried and revised through workshop and research development subcommittec. As "an editor-in chief", I reviewed about the good journal evaluation principles especially four main aspects of the ISI journal selection process for Science Citation Index (SCI) and Index Medicus. These involve examination of basic journal publishing standards, editorial content, international diversity, and citation analysis. Aslo, I reviewed the important and problems of redundant publication and on-line publication. Through these current important issues, I suggests a Master plan for the Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association.