According to a recent analysis of Essential
Science Indicators data from
Thomson
Reuters, the journal Clinical Gastroenterology
and Hepatology (CGH) achieved the highest percent
increase in total citations among journals in the
field of Clinical Medicine. The journal's current
citation record in this field includes 653 papers cited
a total of 4,414 times between January 1, 1998 and
August 31, 2008.
CGH is the official clinical practice journal of
the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA)
Institute, and is published in partnership with
Elsevier.
In the interview
below, ScienceWatch.com correspondent Gary Taubes
talks with CGH's Editor-in-Chief, Dr. C. Mel
Wilcox, about the journal's publication history and
citation record.
When was CGH founded and what was the
motivation?
CGH has a sister journal called Gastroenterology, which
is the premiere GI journal in the field of digestive disease and has been
published since 1943. Although Gastroenterology contains both
basic and clinical research, many of the members of the society that
publishes the journal—the American Gastroenterological Association
(AGA)—thought that the journal did not have enough clinical
material for the practitioner. To that end, the AGA leadership decided to
develop a new journal that’s strictly clinically based. As a result,
CGH was launched.
Now, over seven years later, AGA members receive both
Gastroenterology and CGH and there is a general consensus
that the needs of our diverse membership are now better met.
Are you surprised by how well the journal has done, how
quickly it has risen in citations and impact factor? And what factors
do you think explain it?
"We try to give our readers articles
that we think will be useful, irrespective of
how often those articles may be
cited."
I always knew that CGH was a high-quality publication that
provided practical and applicable content for our physicians. What I
didn’t know was how often the content was being cited. So, in that
sense, I guess I was somewhat surprised by our first impact factor. Now
that we have an impact factor, I’m curious to know how our
submissions will be affected. My sense is that the impact factor is
especially important to our European colleagues. So I think that a lot of
people from overseas didn’t send papers in to us for the first
several years because we didn’t have an impact factor yet. Now we can
see if having an impact factor makes a difference in the next few years.
Our submission volume seems to have picked up a little already.
I also believe that since CGH is published by such a prestigious
society that authors are more likely to submit their manuscripts to the
journal and that those manuscripts tend to be of a very high quality and
citable.
How do the editors make their decisions about whether a
paper should be published in Gastroenterology or
CGH?
In CGH we publish research that is immediately applicable to
practicing physicians—content that can be used in the clinic or as
teaching points. Research that is not quite ready for the clinic is more
appropriate for Gastroenterology.
Are there any particular advances in the field that
might have driven the increase in citations?
What seems to drive citations, and I think this is the case for most
journals, are timely and thoughtful reviews. We’ve published a number
of reviews on inflammatory bowel disease and hepatitis that were very
popular and highly cited. But I’d like to emphasize that we
don’t focus strictly on publishing articles we think will be highly
cited. We try to give our readers articles that we think will be useful,
irrespective of how often those articles may be cited. We have a section,
for instance, that we call "Education Practice," in which authors present a
case and teaching points. We also have "Images of the Month," which can
also be used as teaching points. People learn from these articles, but they
are never highly cited. Our objective is to not only rank highly among the
journals in our field, but to also provide compelling content to our
diverse readership.
How has CGH evolved and changed in the seven
years it’s been around?
I don’t think it’s changed very much at all. We really
haven’t deviated much from the initial concept that was developed by
Dr. Camilleri and his group. We have added a section called
"Perspectives"—one author’s viewpoint on a certain issue. We
hope this section provides a venue for experts to write about something
clinically based that readers will find interesting. We have encouraged
more endoscopy submissions; that’s something of interest to
clinicians. We have added a section called "Endoscopy Corner," so
clinicians who are interested in endoscopy can find related content easily.
"...we’re only as good as the
material submitted to us and the reviewers
who review it."
We also redesigned the cover, making it more scientifically compelling and
visually interesting. It now looks similar to Gastroenterology, so
you can tell the journal is from the same association. That’s more
branding, though, rather than any major transformation in content or
mission.
What do you see as the future of the journal?
I expect that we’ll continue to receive high quality submissions. As
I like to tell people, we’re only as good as the material submitted
to us and the reviewers who review it. One trend we hope continues is to
receive and publish more papers from abroad since we consider ourselves an
international journal. There’s a lot of good science going on outside
of the United States, and more than half of our submissions come from
overseas.
I also see CGH becoming the number one journal exclusively
dedicated to publishing clinical information for healthcare professionals
in the field of digestive disease, surpassing our current competitors.
Physicians will turn to CGH for cutting-edge information that they
can apply immediately to their practices.
Are there significant controversies affecting your
journal or field at this time?
One that comes immediately to mind is the emerging controversy over the
best treatment for inflammatory bowel disease. Do you use biological agents
first or some of the more standard agents? This is the whole top-down
verses top-up approach. We’ve published some studies recently
addressing this issue.
What’s your approach to maximizing the quality of
the papers submitted to the journal?
We published only the highest quality content, so we hope that sends a
message to the authors to submit only their best work. Also, all
manuscripts submitted to CGH undergo rigorous peer
review—authors know that their work must stand up under the critical
appraisal of experts in the field. We have also established a process with
the editors at Gastroenterology whereby manuscripts that are not a
good fit for their journal are fast-tracked to our journal. Those
manuscripts have already been reviewed and revised, thus maximizing the
quality of the content ultimately submitted to CGH.
What would you like to convey to the general public
about your journal’s work?
Patients should know that their digestive disease healthcare professionals
are being educated by high-quality research published in CGH. They
can rest assure that thanks to the content in our journal, their doctors,
nurses, physicians assistants, and other professionals will provide them
with the best care possible.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology C. Mel
Wilcox, Editor-in-Chief
Published by the AGA Institute in partnership with Elsevier
Clinical Gastroenterology
and Hepatology's current most-cited paper in
Essential Science
Indicators, with 104
cites:
Keeffe EG, et al., "A treatment algorithm for the
management of chronic hepatitis B virus infection in the
United States: an update," Clin. Gastroenterol.
Hepatol. 4(8): 936-62, August 2006. Source:
Essential Science Indicators from
Thomson
Reuters.