The New and Improved Journal of Urology

Article Outline

• Copyright

Many readers should have noticed in the January issue cosmetic alterations to The Journal which include a larger font for improved readability (and for those of us getting older), a more user-friendly layout (note the abbreviations are now defined on page 1 of each article), new color schemes and enhanced graphics. However, beyond making The Journal more readable, the editors and staff have instituted substantive changes that readers and authors should also appreciate.

Our recently conducted readership survey revealed that what subscribers value most are clinically relevant original reports, editorial comments and review articles. Therefore, we have created 2 new article types—Special Reports and Opposing Views. Special Reports cover late breaking clinical trials or state-of-the-art presentations at meetings which are important for clinical practice. These invited manuscripts are highlighted and often selected for open access on the Internet and for press releases. Opposing Views will provide a format that allows invited experts to present arguments on controversial topics, often for which levels of evidence or the quality of evidence is modest, leaving urologists in a quandary regarding how to manage certain conditions.

The editors have heard from authors that our limits on word count and number of references were a bit too restrictive and may be preventing some valuable research from being submitted to The Journal. Therefore, as indicated in the Information for Authors published in the back of this issue, we have slightly expanded word and reference counts to allow some flexibility for select manuscripts when crucial to adequately report the work. We have developed a new Author Submission Requirement Form, which you can also find in the Information for Authors, to ensure that only individuals who contributed substantially to the manuscript and the study merit authorship.

In 2007 The Journal of Urology® ranked as the most widely read and cited journal in the field with 45,235 citations, and we continue to maintain that reputation by publishing top quality articles. Some authors may have noticed that it has become more difficult to get a manuscript accepted. In fact our current overall acceptance rate has decreased this past year, reflecting higher selectivity. We have also decreased the average time from author submission to editor decision to less than a month. Although we encourage more rigorous reviews, editors are now providing immediate feedback to authors whose work may not merit a full review, similar to practices of other journals such as JAMA® and the New England Journal of Medicine.

The quality of any journal is dependent on the quality of manuscript reviews. For those of us who participate in journal clubs, it is not surprising to find that our younger faculty members provide the most critical appraisals of published articles. Likewise we are noticing that the younger reviewers of manuscripts submitted to The Journal perform outstanding in-depth reviews. In recognition of their dedication to the peer review process each year we select our top reviewers for special awards to highlight their performance. So senior authors beware, your junior colleagues are less likely to be swayed by past performance and judge work more critically!

Finally, to more accurately reflect our readership and origin of manuscripts, The Journal of Urology® has established an International Editorial Committee with representatives from 10 countries. Members of this committee will review manuscripts in their respective areas of expertise by local authors and scout for regional top research articles.

As your Editor, I hope these changes will provide a better opportunity to disseminate the highest quality urological information to clinicians, thereby improving the care of our patients.