• A Fassoulaki, G Karabinis, and A Paraskeva.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Aretaieio Hospital, Medical School, University of Athens, Greece. fassoula@aretaieio.uoa.gr
• Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2010 Jan 1;61(4):195-201.

AbstractThe aim of the present study was to evaluate six anesthesia journals and academic criteria, required for the editors and reviewers, as perceived by European anesthesiologists submitted to a questionnaire. The six journals were: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica (AAS), Anesthesia and Analgesia (AN/AN), Anesthesiology (ANESTH), British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA), Canadian Journal of Anesthesia (CJA) and European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA). Anesthesiologists were questioned on number of articles read per issue, preferred category of article and type of subject addressed, usefulness of supplemental issues as well as to score each journal for quality, format and color. The academic background they would require for editors and reviewers was scored as the sum of the number of their published articles, citations and manuscripts they reviewed. AN/AN, ANESTH, BJA and EJA have higher number of articles read versus the AAS and the CJA. Article quality was estimated higher for AN/AN than for AAS, CJA and EJA, higher for ANESTH than AN/AN, AAS, CJA and EJA ( p < 0.0001 for all comparisons), and higher for BJA than for AAS, CJA and EJA. ANESTH received higher scores for format than EJA, and BJA than CJA. Finally AN/AN received higher scores for format than AAS, CJA and EJA and for color when compared to AAS, CJA, and EJA. Supplemental issues were considered useful by 77.3% of the respondents. General and original articles were preferred by the respondents. The overall scores of the estimated required academic background did not differ between editors and reviewers or between the different criteria. In conclusion, the six anesthesia journals demonstrated differences in all the variables included in the questionnaire addressed to their readers. In contrast the academic background criteria for editors and reviewers as scored by the readers did not show any differences.

6 keywords...

hide…