Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2012

Evaluation of left ventricular function with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography after administration of dobutamine and esmolol in healthy beagle dogs

Unlike echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cardiac MRI) results in a near-exact assessment of cardiac structures and function. However, most veterinary studies have focused on dogs with normal cardiac function. We hypothesized that there would be significant differences in cardiac measurements between cardiac MRI and echocardiography when left ventricular (LV) function was abnormal. This study was undertaken to compare measurements of LV function produced by cardiac MRI and echocardiography in dogs whose LV function was altered by pharmacological agents. This study was conducted with six healthy beagle dogs. We increased left ventricular contractility by administration of dobutamine; we decreased cardiac contractility with esmolol. Stroke volume measurements were made by using both cardiac MRI and echocardiography under seven different conditions with general anesthesia: control, three doses of esmolol (100, 200, and 500 µg/kg/min), and three doses of dobutamine (10, 20, and 50 µg/kg/min). Experiments involving each condition were conducted at least 1 week apart. When LV contractility was normal, ejection fraction (EF) and stroke volume (SV), as measured by echocardiography and cardiac MRI, were not significantly different. However, when contractility was changed by pharmacological agents, EF and SV were overestimated by echocardiography, compared to MRI. Evaluation of cardiac function in patients treated with pharmacological agents should be conducted carefully because EF and SV measured by echocardiography can be overestimated, compared with EF and SV obtained by cardiac MRI.

Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2013

There were 109 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2013, which is a 21% increase on the 90 articles published in 2012. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The editors are delighted to report that the 2012 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2013) has risen to 5.11, up from 4.44 for 2011 (as published in June 2012), a 15% increase and taking us through the 5 threshold for the first time. The 2012 impact factor means that the JCMR papers that were published in 2010 and 2011 were cited on average 5.11 times in 2012. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, the progress of the journal's impact over the last 5 years has been impressive. Our acceptance rate is <25% and has been falling because the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors have felt that it is useful once per calendar year to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, so that areas of interest can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles. The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality manuscripts to JCMR for publication.

Acceptance rates for manuscripts submitted to veterinary peer-reviewed journals in 2012

REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY

Relatively few journals publish their annual acceptance rate, although this figure is of scientific and academic interest.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the acceptance rate for manuscripts submitted to veterinary peer-reviewed journals during 2012 and to determine the proportions of submitted manuscripts that were accepted without revision, accepted after revision or rejected.

STUDY DESIGN

Self-reporting email questionnaire

METHODS

Editors of 118 peer-reviewed journals listed in the Web of Science in the subject category veterinary sciences were invited by email to submit data pertinent to manuscripts submitted to their journal in 2012.

RESULTS

Data were received from 30 (26%) journals. Mean ± s.d. acceptance rate was 47 ± 15%. On average 3 ± 5% submitted manuscripts were accepted without revision, 44% ± 15% manuscripts were accepted after revision, 4 ± 4% manuscripts were withdrawn by authors, 46 ± 17% manuscripts were rejected and 3 ± 5% manuscripts were still pending at the end of the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

With so few manuscripts accepted without revision, prospective authors must expect to expend time and effort revising and resubmitting their manuscripts for publication. Although authors are frequently able to correct manuscript flaws identified by reviewers, the knowledge that less than half submitted manuscripts are accepted might help stimulate prospective authors to try to submit better quality manuscripts.

Acceptance rate and reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound during 2012

Better understanding of the reasons why manuscripts are rejected, and recognition of the most frequent manuscript flaws identified by reviewers, should help submitting authors to avoid these pitfalls. Of 219 manuscripts submitted to Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound in 2012, none (0%) was accepted without revision, four (2%) were withdrawn by the authors, 99 (45%) were accepted after revision, and 116 (53%) were rejected. All manuscripts for which minor revision was requested, and 73/86 (85%) manuscripts for which major revision was requested, were ultimately accepted. Acceptance rate was greater for retrospective studies and for manuscripts submitted from countries in which English was the primary language. The prevalences of flaws in manuscripts were poor writing (62%), deficiencies in data (60%), logical or methodological errors (28%), content not suitable for Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound (26%), and lack of new or useful knowledge (25%). Likelihood of manuscript rejection was greater for lack of new or useful knowledge and content not suitable than for other manuscript flaws. The lower acceptance rate for manuscripts from countries in which English was not the primary language was associated with content not suitable and not poor writing. Submitting authors are encouraged to do more to recognize and address manuscript flaws before submission, for example by internal review. Specifically, submitting authors should express clearly the potential added value of their study in the introduction section of their manuscript, describe completely their methods and results, and consult the Editor-in-Chief if they are uncertain whether their subject matter would be suitable for the journal.