Letter to the Editor

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


  • ecris pour vous preciser que ce nest pas suffisant et que je nauraispas persevere sans laide de toute une communaute en cours deroute. Le premier obstacle fut de choisir entre la recherche qual-itative et la recherche quantitative et, etant donne que nous vou-lions entendre nos participants, nous nous sommes lances dans larecherche qualitative. Lapprobation deontologique fut la con-sideration suivante puis, une etude pilote a ete effectuee dansnotre clinique, dont les resultats ont ete analyses afin daffinernos techniques dentrevue. Les demandes de financement ont re-presente un autre defi. Chaque personne a qui nous avonsdemande de laide etait invitee a offrir son expertise. Les forma-teurs cliniques, les formateurs provinciaux, les bibliothecaires etles specialistes en recherche ont tous repondu patiemment, reviseet oriente cet papier. Celui-ci a ensuite fait lobjet de troisrevisions au cours de trois cycles dexamen par des pairs, ce que196 Letter to the Editor/Journal of Medical Imaging ajai vraiment apprecie. Cependant, une plus grande competenceen recherche qualitative constituerait un atout. Le processus desoumission au JMIRS a represente un autre defi, etant donneque je ne lai pas trouve tres intuitif. Le directeur de la redactionma aide chaque fois avec gentillesse et patience. Permettez-moide dire que, si vous avez une passion, une question ou uneidee, le JMIRS dispose de plusieurs personnes pretesa vous aider.Cette experience a ete vraiment educative et gratifiante.

    Merci a ma communaute.

    Jan Wilson, MRT(T)E-mail address: janicelynnw@gmail.com

    Cancer Centre for the Southern InteriorBritish Columbia, CanadaReponse a la Lettre a la Redactrice en ChefMadame Wilson,

    Permettez-moi de vous remercier davoir aborde deux elementsessentiels au changement que nous constatons, non seulementdans notre journal mais aussi dans lensemble de notre pratiqueprofessionnelle. Le passage dune pratique appliquee a une pra-tique universitaire faconnee par notre interrogation. Linterroga-tion de chacun suscitee par notre propre recherche qui orientenotre travail clinique. Le tout est etroitement lie a la notion dequestionner continuellement notre facon de penser, selon nosmethodes traditionnelles, pour trouver des facons de trouver demeilleures methodes. En transmettant votre point de vue, vousvous etes adressee a lapprentissage experientiel qui poursuivravotre saga consistant a toujours questionner.

    Avec mes remerciements.

    Lisa Di Prospero, BSc (Hons), MSc, MRT(T)Redactrice en chef, JMIRS

    E-mail address: editor@camrt.caLetter to the EditorDear Editor,

    Re: Currie GM. Impact Factors in Medical Radiation ScienceJournals (Guest Editorial). Journal of Medical Imaging andRadiation Sciences 2014; 45(2): 70-71.

    We were very interested to read a Guest Editorial inyour journal by your deputy editor G.M. Currie [1], whichconsiders whether, for your journal, there is any benefit ofpursuing a Journal Citation Reports (JCR) listing. The lim-itations of the impact factor when used to assess journalquality have previously been outlined in the Radiographyjournal [2] which is currently engaging in a similar debateregarding the relative merits of application for various jour-nal database listings.However, we must take issue with the claim made in thiseditorial that JMIRS is the only major peer-reviewed interna-tional journal that represents the technical professionals in all spe-cializations of the medical radiation sciences (p71). This claimis unfounded and potentially misleading for your readership.We wish to offer the following evidence in support of Radio-graphyInternational Journal of Diagnostic Imaging and Radia-tion Therapy (Elsevier Ltd), a double-blind peer-reviewedjournal which has been published quarterly since 1995. Theaims and scope for this journal specify that it aims to publishthe highest quality clinical, scientific, and educational materialon all aspects of radiographic imaging (to include diagnosticradiography, computed tomography, nuclear medicine,sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging) and all aspectsnd Radiation Sciences 45 (2014) 195-200


  • of radiation therapy (to include patient care, dosimetry, treat-ment planning, verification, treatment delivery, and oncology)[3]. Clearly all major specializations of radiography andmedical radiation sciences are listed.

    Radiography has an international authorship and reader-ship, with 36% of papers published in the first two editionsof 2014 from non-UK authors and 69% of our Science Directcustomers originating from outside Western Europe. TheEditorial Board also reflects a wide international base and in-cludes international associate editors from North America andAustralasia.

    Print circulation of the journal currently reaches 21,800members of the UK Society of Radiographers (2014 todate) with total online usage via Science Direct of 174,772full text article downloads (2013), demonstrating the widetarget audience argued by G.M. Currie to be an importantfactor in selecting a journal for dissemination of an authorswork.

    We agree that a journal impact factor considered inisolation does not provide a guarantee of quality of a jour-nal or of an article therein, and other factors such as thetarget audience, global reach, and usage (print and articledownloads) are important considerations in determiningthe appropriate journal in which to publish. However,author choice is also important, and as a profession weshould embrace the benefits of having (at least) two inter-national peer-reviewed journals to serve our radiographyLetter to the Editor/Journal of Medical Imaging aresearch, clinical, and academic communities. The emer-gence of relatively new professional journals into the globalmarket (e.g. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences, launchedin 2013) is perhaps an encouraging sign that researchwithin the radiography profession is becoming better estab-lished and more highly valued.

    Yours sincerely,

    Julie M. Nightingale, PhD, MSc, DCR(R)Editor-in-Chief Radiography

    E-mail address: J.Nightingale@salford.ac.uk

    University of SalfordGreater Manchester, UK

    Charlotte Beardmore, MBA, BSc (Hons), DCR(R)(T)Director of Professional Policy

    Society and College of RadiographersLondon, UK


    [1] Currie, G. M. (2014). Impact factors in medical radiation science jour-

    nals. Guest editorial. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences45(2), 7071.

    [2] Nightingale, J. M., & Marshall, G. (2012). Citation analysis as a measure

    of article quality, journal influence and individual researcher perfor-

    mance. Radiography 18, 6067.[3] Radiography Journal homepage (full aims and scope) http://www.

    journals.elsevier.com/radiography/. Accessed July 28, 2014.Response to the Letter to the EditorDear Dr. Nightingale,

    Thank you for your letter to the editor and comments.I apologise for any unintentional misunderstanding. My

    comments were not meant to diminish the value and impactof other journals. Indeed, I value your journal and others asboth a reader and author. I should also indicate that the edito-rial reflected my own personal and professional opinion, andnot that of the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sci-ences (JMIRS ). Nonetheless, I stand by the comment and offerthe following justification.

    Firstly, aiming to publish in all areas of medical radiationscience as you indicate for the Radiography journal does nottranslate necessarily to delivery of that aim. I am aware thatRadiography and Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences, an Austra-lian journal are open to publications from all aspects of the med-ical radiation sciences and each has an international footprint.Nonetheless, in a very large volume of articles, Radiographyhas just two nuclear medicinespecific articles over the 5 yearperiod 20102014 including in press articles at the time ofwriting. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences has a higherabsolute number and relative number of nuclear medicine pub-lications and yet I do not believe that it has yet established atrack record that establishes it as a major international journalfor all aspects of the medical radiation sciences. Indeed, the Jour-nal of Nuclear Medicine Technology has a greater proportion ofpublications that would be considered radiographic in naturethan Radiography has for nuclear medicine. Furthermore, boththose nuclear medicine articles in Radiography are positron-emission tomographybased, meaning, there are no articles dur-ing that period dedicated to the more widespread general nuclearmedicine practice or indeed radionuclide therapy. I recognisethat a number of generic articles on patient care, education,research, and the like will extend some benefit to the nuclearmedicine community.

    Secondly, the situation in the UK is somewhat counter tothe majority of the globe. Reflecting on the scope and positionstatement for Radiography, nuclear medicine is not part of theradiography profession and is not classified as radiographicimaging. Indeed, the Journal of Medical Radiation Sciencesyou mention in your letter is not a new journal, it is simplythe long established journal The Radiographer that has beennd Radiation Sciences 45 (2014) 195-200 197


    Letter to the EditorReferences


View more >