Quality and impact of occupational therapy journals: Authors’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/aim: With increasing pressure for academic accountability, there is a need for the profession to consider the quality and impact of its journals. This seems even more pressing because few occupational therapy journals have an impact factor, which has become synonymous with quality. By surveying authors of papers in occupational therapy journals, this study aimed to determine their perceptions of indicators of journal quality and ratings of 19 occupational therapy journals on these indicators and to have them provide a global rating for non‐occupational therapy journals. Methods: Authors of papers in peer‐reviewed occupational therapy journals between 2003 and 2005 were invited to complete an online survey. Of 554 authors, 184 (33%) responded. Most respondents were female (91%); over 40 years of age (78%); from the USA (29%), Canada (17%), Australia (16%), UK (16%) or Sweden (10%); had PhDs or professional doctorates (55%); and were academics (53%). The majority (63%) had published between 0 and two papers per year over the previous 3 years. Results: The top five quality indicators rated as very important were reputation/prestige of the journal, availability, rigour and quality of the manuscript review process, timeliness of review and publication, and impact on policy/practice. Six journals were rated high by respondents across most quality indicators (American Journal of Occupational Therapy, Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, British Journal of Occupational Therapy, Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, and Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy). Conclusions: The results are discussed in terms of promoting research and scholarship within academic institutions that are influenced by measures of research productivity and quality. Limitations of the study and recommendations for future research are included.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.153 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".