Peer Review at JGIM

Our journal could not function without the many talented people who provide peer reviews. In 2021, we had 3277 submissions., with 1647 reviewers from 35 different countries who submitted 2504 reviews. Over a quarter of our reviewers (29%) reviewed more than one article last year. In years past, we published a list of our “top” reviewers. However, we can no longer do so, due to Eurpean publishing privacy regulations (our publisher is based in the UK). While we no longer publish names, we continue to provide CME credit for all peer reviews that were submitted on time and had a quality rating of 3 or better (on a 6-point scale). The vast majority met these criteria.

Unfortunately, there has been a dramatic decline in the number of articles published in “first tier journals.” This has opened the door for predatory journals and left health service researchers with a diminished venue for their work. One of our goals when we assumed leadership of JGIM was to increase the number of articles publised (Fig. 1). We accomplished this, partly, because we have a greater number of submissions and also because we have increased our acceptance rate. Because we are publishing more articles, we increased the number of issues. Starting this year, JGIM is published 16 times a year instead of 12. Last year, we published 786 manuscripts with an overall acceptance rate of 24%. The acceptance rate for different types of articles varied, from 7% for Innovations to 50% for Research and Reporting Methods. While the majority of submissions were from the USA (68%), we received articles from 64 different countries. The top 10 included China (n=347), Canada (n=78), Japan (n=71), Spain (n=47), Israel (n=47), Italy (n=36), Taiwan (n=32), the UK (n=27), India (n=24), and Iran (n=23). Not surprisingly, our reviews last year also hailed from 36 different countries, though 90% of peer reviews were from the USA.

Fig. 1.

Number of  manuscripts published in JGIM by year

All authors are keenly interested in how long the process will take. Last year, our reviewers averaged 16 days from when inviation until we received the review. The average time from submission to first decision by the editors was 29 days. On average, accepted articles appeared online in a little over 2 months. This reflects the hard work of our staff in Indianapolis, our Associate Editors, and our cadre of reviewers.

Fortunately our journal’s growth has not come at the expense of JGIM’s impact factor. JGIM’s impact factor has increased, from 2.12 in 1997 to 6.5 last year. Importantly, our 5-year impact factor is also strong at 7.0. This suggests that our published articles have staying power. While the Impact Factor is not our primary focus, we are pleased that our changes have not harmed the journal.

Another big transition for our journal is from paper to mostly online. Last year, only 53 SGIM members received paper copies (and yes the Editors in Chief are 3 among that number). Not surprisingly, this has resulted in a large increase in downloads, with nearly 3 million in 2021.

As we head into our last year as JGIM editors, we are pleased with the journal’s performance. Our success is largely due to the many dedicated professionals who provide peer reviews and serve as Associate Editors and our managing editors in Indianapolis. It is impossible to fully express our gratitude.

We live in turbulent times. Truth is not always easily apparent and there are forces who seek to bend it to their own ends. Science is under attack. The best way to fight this is to continue to publish unbiased, factual research. An important step in this is high-quality reviews. If you are not already registered as a peer reviewer, please consider signing up. There are a number of benefits to being a reviewer. Reviewing can help you keep abreast of current work in your own areas of expertise. Reviewing hones your own skills as an author and a researcher. You have the opportunity to shape medical knowledge and help others improve their articles. You can earn 3 h of CME for your effort. Reviewing is an excellent way to teach critical appraisal by including a learner in your review efforts. Finally, reviewing is a form of paying it forward. If each of your articles is reviewed by 3 people, that means that you should review 3 times as many papers as you submit! Actively publishing authors make some of the best reviewers as they have knowledge and experience to draw on. We look forward to working with all of our reviewers to deliver relevant, rigorous content for our readers in the years to come.