The Health of the Journal of Allied Health

Usually, in the Editorial I present a review of the articles appearing in the issue. With this issue I also would like to bring you up to date on some of the things that have happened over the past year. First, I am pleased to announce that Jessica Kaplowitz has been promoted to Managing Editor of the Journal. Over the past 2 years, Jessica has done an outstanding job of handling many of the administrative details of the Journal, working closely with our reviewers and authors. I am sure that all of you who have been in contact with her understand how valuable she is and will join me in congratulating her. The Journal continues to be vibrant and healthy. We continue to receive manuscripts from across the world addressing some of the main issues facing healthcare professionals and the various healthcare systems. These manuscripts continue to demonstrate that there are more similarities than differences in the issues and problems faced by each discipline and each country. Last year, we had 68 manuscripts submitted for the second year in a row. With one exception, these 2 years had the highest number of submissions since I assumed responsibility for the Journal. This number may not compare to those seen at some of the large journals, but it continues to increase, which is a good sign that individuals from a variety of disciplines and countries now see JAH as a desirable place to publish. Currently, we have 43 manuscripts in review and 28 awaiting publication, meaning that the wait time from acceptance to publication is approximately 1 year. Of the 68 manuscripts submitted, approximately 18% are from outside the United States, giving the Journal a truly international flavor. Many of these manuscripts come from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. We are increasing our efforts to solicit more submissions from other countries in the European Union, and Laurie Sherwen is working with COHEHRE, the allied health organization in Europe, to this end. This work is beginning to pay dividends, as we have seen growing interest from many of our European colleagues. As the number of submissions increases, so does the variety of topics. Each manuscript is sent to three individuals so that we may get as thorough a peer-review as possible. In order to do this, we are always looking for qualified persons to serve as peer-reviewers. Consequently, we have added 17 new reviewers during the past year, bringing the total number to 134- I would like to express my deepest appreciation for the fine work that our Editorial Board and reviewers do. They not only review the science of each manuscript, but help each author address any problems that are found. Recently, we have had some questions from authors regarding the Journal e-supplement, asking if articles there are less important than, or not as good as, those in the paper copy. I would like to assure everyone that such is not the case, as all articles go through the same, rigorous review process. The purpose of the e-supplement is to alleviate the backlog of accepted articles awaiting publication. As previously mentioned, there is approximately a 1-year lag between the time a manuscript is accepted for publication and the time it appears in print. Although this wait is not abnormal for selective journals, we have decided that we would like to get the manuscripts in print in a more timely manner. The decision about which features to place in the e-supplement was predicated on our belief that those features in the paper copy would have interest to a wider audience. We have also received questions regarding the fee lngenta charges to view articles in the e-supplement. As a result, we have requested that there be no charge for access to the e-supplement papers. This will allow more people to access these articles. Because of the growing cost of journal subscriptions, many libraries have reduced the number of journals to which they subscribe, journal of Allied Health is still a bargain at $105 a year, considerably less than some of the other major journals. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.