A Call to Authors: Three Solid Reasons to Publish in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry

As we launch Volume 36 of the Journal, we can anticipate several exciting developments. Many have implications for both authors and readers and bear on the ever-present decision facing all researchers – whether to submit one's manuscript to an overseas or the College Journal. Let me give you an idea about what to expect.

Consortia

Since establishing links with Blackwell Publishing Asia (BPA) (incidentally the new name for Blackwell Science Asia) we have been fortunate to benefit from its world-wide connections – but there is promise of much more to come. In 1999 BP (Blackwell Publishing, the global company name) began to promote the concept of what has come to be known as ‘consortia sales’. In effect, the publisher has established a global sales team which markets its journals (on-line version) to library consortia. The full suite of BP scientific and medical titles are sold on a per site basis to the libraries.

This is a win-win arrangement in that the publisher benefits from improved sales and the libraries, by forming consortia, wield greater buying power. It is therefore no surprise that the consortia-based circulation has increased dramatically. In 1999, when the program was launched, 144 sites were established. 2000 saw a 32% increase in sites; by 2001 the number had jumped to over 1200.

What does this imply? Consider the situation in Russia where no less than 373 sites have been set up. Iceland has bought almost two dozen sites: Korea an astonishing 70 sites. A particularly large institution may constitute a consortium. Thus, for example, the Mayo Clinic has five sites and the University of Toronto nine. Libraries may also group together. The Japan Medical Library Association has acquired 14 sites while in Australia, the Council of Australian University Libraries (CAUL) has grabbed its enhanced buying potential vigorously. Not only libraries are banding together. Blackwell Publishing Asia recently approached 200 Australian hospitals and spurred them to consider increasing their on-line subscriptions while maintaining their print subscriptions. For Australasian psychiatric authors this means their publications achieve widespread dissemination around the world.

Developing countries and their needs

Another noteworthy aspect of this new process is the breakthrough it represents in the effort to close the information gap between rich and poor countries. The Russian example cited earlier will allow students and professionals in over 300 Russian institutions to have access to BP journals in science, medicine, the humanities and the social sciences – including our Journal. Institutions will include universities, research libraries, medical schools and nursing colleges. Blackwell Publishing anticipates extending access to a further 200 Russian institutions as well as to cities in neighbouring Belarus and the Ukraine.

Another way of closing the gap between rich and poor nations is a splendid initiative by the World Health Organization (WHO) that will enable 73 developing countries to gain access to many medical journals that have, hitherto, been largely inaccessible. Blackwell Publishing's arrangement with the WHO will allow health professionals, researchers and policy makers in WHOaccredited institutions in these countries on-line access to over 200 journals, thereby helping them to improve the health of their populations. As Dr Brundtland, Director-General of the WHO, has proclaimed, ‘It is perhaps the biggest step ever taken towards reducing the health information gap between rich and poor countries’. Blackwell Publishing will be working with the WHO to extend the reach of its journals including the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (ANZJP). If we take both sets of developments into account, our publisher estimates that the Journal will have over four million potential new readers.

The impact factor and an alternative to it

Although I personally remain highly sceptical about the validity of the Impact Factor (IF) as a measure of the quality of an individual article (see the October 2001 issue for a point of view by Garry Walter and myself on this contentious topic), it remains ‘the only game in town’. We could play that game in all sorts of ways, as would Dr Touchup, the mythical editor Dr Walter and I describe in our argument e.g. abolish case reports, publish many more review articles and slash the number of articles in a volume. Clearly, an ethical dimension prevails in this context. Whatever any of us might think about the IF, the news from the Thomson Corporation in Philadelphia, its progenitor, is that the Journal's IF has gone up to 1.3 in 2001, its third successive rise in as many years. In an effort to devise a valid measure of the quality of an individual article, we are currently completing an experiment that we outlined in our point of view, namely the selection of articles (an extension of peer review) in the 2001 volume by a panel of four distinguished colleagues which meet the criterion of adding consequentially to the field by offering original, innovative research findings. Anthony Clare, Glen Gabbard, Norman Sartorius and George Szmukler are, at the time of writing, making their final judgements. The top 10% of articles will be announced in early 2002 in the Journal and on our website. We will also inform fellow editors of this initiative and its feasibility. Obviously, we will carefully review the procedure with a view to repeating it in 2002.

Three reasons why those who do not publish in the College journal should reconsider now

As editor I scrutinize the American and British Journals of Psychiatry, the Archives of General Psychiatry, Psychological Medicine and Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, i.e. the main generalist journals in psychiatry, to keep abreast of editorial and professional trends. It becomes readily apparent that there is a sizeable group of Australasian researchers who publish overseas but also submit a substantial proportion of their papers to the ANZJP. But, disappointingly we have also lost distinguished colleagues for our own pages, if indeed we ever had them. A distinct group of Fellows publish regularly, even frequently, but refrain from doing so in our Journal. Now is a crucial time for these colleagues to reconsider. Three arguments stand out:(i) individual self-interest; (ii) the interests of the next generation of psychiatric researchers in Australia and New Zealand; and (iii) the sense of identity of Australasian psychiatry, the sense of its place in the professional world.

(1) The international standing of the Journal is high, has never been higher, and continues to rise

This is evident on several fronts. First, I am emboldened by the consistent response I have enjoyed upon inviting submissions from distinguished colleagues in other countries. Refusal is rare. On the contrary, invitees often refer, with obvious sincerity, to the honour they feel in being asked to write for the ANZJP. I believe we can take great pride in celebrating the contributions of such eminent figures in psychiatry and psychology as Thomas Achenbach, German Berrios, Aksel Bertelsen, Max Birchwood, Robert Cloninger, Martin Deahl, Allen Frances, Alfred Freedman, Glen Gabbard, Paul Gilbert, Kevin Gournay, Oye Gureje, Martin Hambrecht, Onno van der Hart, Jeremy Holmes, Bessel van der Kolk, Sing Lee, Julian Leff, Anthony Mann, Issac Marks, Herman van Praag, Judith Rappaport, Morton Reiser, Norman Sartorius, Alan Schore (see his tour de force in this issue) Mogens Schou and Graeme Taylor.

Second, given the new developments with which I began this editorial, coupled with the fact that we are covered by no less than 30 indexing and abstracting services, the former snag of the Journal's relative inaccessibility is evaporating rapidly.

Third, as already mentioned, the Journal's IF has risen progressively over recent years and, given what we have in the pipeline, is likely to continue to increase. The reasons for this are complex, but certainly include a range of editorial measures we have implemented to raise the standard of the publication (the rejection rate has climbed up to about 60%).

(2) The new generation of researchers: will we have one?

We may shoot ourselves in the foot by failing to inspire a new generation of researchers – who, disturbingly, appear to be relatively thin on the ground. We could debate the reasons for this trend but there can be no debate about the positive contribution the ANZJP can make to remedying it.

New graduates in psychiatry need to read the contributions from their teachers and mentors in a forum which is an inherent part of their professional identity, i.e. feeling part of an Australasian collegial fellowship.

(3) The sense of identity of Australasian psychiatry

The reasons why we publish overseas are fairly obvious and we can certainly all appreciate what lies behind the choice of a particular journal. I know from my own experience that I have had a particular purpose in submitting a paper to an overseas journal, e.g. it covers a specialist field or I seek to reach a specific readership.

On the other hand, I have become progressively more concerned that the decision to publish overseas may be also a relic of a cultural and academic ‘cringe’, a sense that Antipodean psychiatry is inferior to American, British and European psychiatry and, as a corollary, that our Journal is a junior sibling to its overseas counterparts. Nothing could be further from the truth concerning either Australasian psychiatry or the Journal.

I encourage all Fellows to regard the Journal as a flagship of Australasian psychiatry, which can figure proudly among our sister journals in North America and Europe and indeed be their equal in respect to academic standard, prestige and presentation.

The Journal is on a roll, gathering speed, and now is the time for us to contribute to the process by jumping on board. We could, I am confident, join the top league if we all agreed to join forces.