The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

What makes the best medical ethics journal?: A North American perspective

What makes the best medical ethics journal?: A North American perspective
What makes the best medical ethics journal?: A North American perspective

BACKGROUND: There currently exist no data on the factors that contribute to determining why medical ethicists choose to review for and submit articles to medical ethics journals.

OBJECTIVE: To establish which factors contribute to medical ethicists reviewing articles for or submitting them to medical ethics journals by consulting those who are active in this capacity.

METHODS: Medical ethicists were surveyed to determine their incentives and disincentives for reviewing articles for or submitting them to medical ethics journals. Survey participants were chosen based on a review of the academic and research record of medical ethicists working in North America in higher education institutions.

RESULTS: The most frequent incentives to reviewing journal articles were: an opportunity to contribute to the field/profession, the good reputation of the journal, the high impact factor of the journal, and to keep up to date on current research. The most frequent disincentives to reviewing journal articles were: time constraints due to academic commitments, the poor reputation of the journal, and time constraints caused by other editorial commitments (for example, reviewing for other journals/publishers). The most important incentives to submitting journal articles were: the good reputation of the journal, the quality of scholarship previously published in the journal, the impact factor of the journal, and a fast turn-around from acceptance to publication. The most important disincentives to submitting journal articles were: the poor reputation of the journal, the poor quality of work previously published in the journal, and a slow turn-around from acceptance to publication.

CONCLUSION: A series of factors that medical ethics journals should strive to employ to encourage reviewing and submission of articles are recommended.

Attitude of Health Personnel, Authorship, Ethics, Medical, Interprofessional Relations, Motivation, North America, Peer Review, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Time Factors, Journal Article
0306-6800
591-7
Savulescu, J
6622fa73-cd57-46e3-bdb2-d46a1bea7704
Viens, A M
cc615c33-4e17-41b2-b82d-2c11569c0c34
Savulescu, J
6622fa73-cd57-46e3-bdb2-d46a1bea7704
Viens, A M
cc615c33-4e17-41b2-b82d-2c11569c0c34

Savulescu, J and Viens, A M (2005) What makes the best medical ethics journal?: A North American perspective. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31 (10), 591-7. (doi:10.1136/jme.2004.010827).

Record type: Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There currently exist no data on the factors that contribute to determining why medical ethicists choose to review for and submit articles to medical ethics journals.

OBJECTIVE: To establish which factors contribute to medical ethicists reviewing articles for or submitting them to medical ethics journals by consulting those who are active in this capacity.

METHODS: Medical ethicists were surveyed to determine their incentives and disincentives for reviewing articles for or submitting them to medical ethics journals. Survey participants were chosen based on a review of the academic and research record of medical ethicists working in North America in higher education institutions.

RESULTS: The most frequent incentives to reviewing journal articles were: an opportunity to contribute to the field/profession, the good reputation of the journal, the high impact factor of the journal, and to keep up to date on current research. The most frequent disincentives to reviewing journal articles were: time constraints due to academic commitments, the poor reputation of the journal, and time constraints caused by other editorial commitments (for example, reviewing for other journals/publishers). The most important incentives to submitting journal articles were: the good reputation of the journal, the quality of scholarship previously published in the journal, the impact factor of the journal, and a fast turn-around from acceptance to publication. The most important disincentives to submitting journal articles were: the poor reputation of the journal, the poor quality of work previously published in the journal, and a slow turn-around from acceptance to publication.

CONCLUSION: A series of factors that medical ethics journals should strive to employ to encourage reviewing and submission of articles are recommended.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: October 2005
Keywords: Attitude of Health Personnel, Authorship, Ethics, Medical, Interprofessional Relations, Motivation, North America, Peer Review, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Time Factors, Journal Article
Organisations: Law A

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 410472
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/410472
ISSN: 0306-6800
PURE UUID: 69a85f91-6e82-45fe-9e39-1e8843cf7449

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 09 Jun 2017 08:59
Last modified: 08 Jan 2022 01:21

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: J Savulescu
Author: A M Viens

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×