Academic Journals Assessed as Springboards for New Developments: A Study of Leading Anesthesia Journals Over Past 50 Years

Abstract

Purpose

The impact of academic journals on scientific activity can be measured using different approaches. The aim of this study was to assess the leading anesthesia journals as springboards for new developments in the field of anesthesia.

Methods

The selection of the topics for analysis was based on the degree of increase in the number of articles on a topic that was at the center of specialty interest during 1966-2015. The assessment of a journal's response to a new development was made by measuring the number of initial articles on a related topic. Six leading anesthesia journals were assessed collectively and individually as to whether their responses to new developments were prompt and prominent.

Results

The role of the leading specialty journals in presentation of 28 topics related to prominent new developments in anesthesia was found to depend on the nature of topics and the type of articles. Compared with all PubMed journals publishing articles associated with anesthesia in 1966-2015, the six leading anesthesia journals published 43% of drug-related research articles, 30% of technique-related research articles, and 16% of both drug- and technique-related review articles. Regarding initial publications (on new topics), this group of six journals contributed comparably more articles: from 43% to 84% of drug-related research articles, from 30% to 49% of technique-related research articles, from 16% to 33% of drug-related review articles, and from 16% to 25% of technique-related review articles. The approximate doubling of the shares demonstrates the dominance of this group of journals in the swiftness response to new anesthesia developments.

The promptness of reaction to new developments in anesthesia of each of the six leading anesthesia journals was assessed (the combination of drug- and technique-related articles) based on the number of articles published among the first (first 5 plus next 30) on all 28 topics. The ranking order of four journals (with the highest number of all 1966-2015 articles) regarding early publications was (from high to low): Anesthesia & Analgesia, British Journal of Anaesthesia, Anesthesiology, and Anaesthesia.

Conclusion

This study assesses six leading anesthesia journals for their function as springboards for new developments in anesthesia over the past 50 years. The dominance of leading journals in initial publications on 28 drug-related and technique-related topics was clearly demonstrated. The results also indicate the possibility of using promptness of response to new advances for quantitative assessment of this aspect of a journal's contribution to the specialty.