Benchmarking Scientific Journals from the Submitting Author’s Viewpoint

Authors of scholarly papers to a large extent base the decision on where to submit their manuscripts on the prestige of journals, taking little account of other possible factors. Information concerning such factors is in fact often not available. This paper argues for the establishment of methods for benchmarking scientific journals, taking into account a wider range of journal performance parameters than is currently available. A model for how prospective authors determine the value of submitting to a particular journal is presented. The model includes eight factors that influence an author’s decision and 21 other underlying factors. The model is a qualitative one. The method proposes to benchmark groups of journals by application of the factors. Initial testing of the method has been undertaken in one discipline.

Kohti leikkaussalin tuloksellista toiminnanohjausta

Background: The aging population is placing increasing demands on surgical services, simultaneously with a decreasing supply of professional labor and a worsening economic situation. Under growing financial constraints, successful operating room management will be one of the key issues in the struggle for technical efficiency. This study focused on several issues affecting operating room efficiency. Materials and methods: The current formal operating room management in Finland and the use of performance metrics and information systems used to support this management were explored using a postal survey. We also studied the feasibility of a wireless patient tracking system as a tool for managing the process. The reliability of the system as well as the accuracy and precision of its automatically recorded time stamps were analyzed. The benefits of a separate anesthesia induction room in a prospective setting were compared with the traditional way of working, where anesthesia is induced in the operating room. Using computer simulation, several models of parallel processing for the operating room were compared with the traditional model with respect to cost-efficiency. Moreover, international differences in operating room times for two common procedures, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open lung lobectomy, were investigated. Results: The managerial structure of Finnish operating units was not clearly defined. Operating room management information systems were found to be out-of-date, offering little support to online evaluation of the care process. Only about half of the information systems provided information in real time. Operating room performance was most often measured by the number of procedures in a time unit, operating room utilization, and turnover time. The wireless patient tracking system was found to be feasible for hospital use. Automatic documentation of the system facilitated patient flow management by increasing process transparency via more available and accurate data, while lessening work for staff. Any parallel work flow model was more cost-efficient than the traditional way of performing anesthesia induction in the operating room. Mean operating times for two common procedures differed by 50% among eight hospitals in different countries. Conclusions: The structure of daily operative management of an operating room warrants redefinition. Performance measures as well as information systems require updating. Parallel work flows are more cost-efficient than the traditional induction-in-room model.

A Method for Comparing Scholarly Journals as Service Providers to Authors

When authors of scholarly articles decide where to submit their manuscripts for peer review and eventual publication, they often base their choice of journals on very incomplete information abouthow well the journals serve the authors’ purposes of informing about their research and advancing their academic careers. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a new method for benchmarking scientific journals, providing more information to prospective authors. The method estimates a number of journal parameters, including readership, scientific prestige, time from submission to publication, acceptance rate and service provided by the journal during the review and publication process. Data directly obtainable from the web, data that can be calculated from such data, data obtained from publishers and editors, and data obtained using surveys with authors are used in the method, which has been tested on three different sets of journals, each from a different discipline. We found a number of problems with the different data acquisition methods, which limit the extent to which the method can be used. Publishers and editors are reluctant to disclose important information they have at hand (i.e. journal circulation, web downloads, acceptance rate). The calculation of some important parameters (for instance average time from submission to publication, regional spread of authorship) can be done but requires quite a lot of work. It can be difficult to get reasonable response rates to surveys with authors. All in all we believe that the method we propose, taking a “service to authors” perspective as a basis for benchmarking scientific journals, is useful and can provide information that is valuable to prospective authors in selected scientific disciplines.