Cardiovascular Research 41 (1999) 1–4
Editorial
Submission, acceptance rate, rapid review system and impact factor
Tobias Opthof 1
In recent years we commented on several aspects of the
handling of manuscripts, such as submission [1], geographical trends in submission [2,3], the impact factor of
Cardiovascular Research [1,4,5] and the reviewer’s related
features of the process [6]. At the onset of this last year of
the Millennium we present an update of these data.
higher than during the years 1992–1996. Fig. 1 shows the
monthly submission rate, which is now close to 90
manuscripts per month, a 50% increase compared to 1995.
Elsevier Science has provided us with more staff to meet
the administrative consequences of this increase. We have
also extended our number of reviewers to over 2,400.
Finally, we have increased the number of published papers
by 10% in 1998.
1. Submission
In the January 1998 issue [1] we reported on the
increase in submissions during 1997, which was 38%
2. Acceptance rate
Fig. 2 shows the acceptance rate after taking office in
1995. For three years we were able to maintain an
Fig. 1. Number of averaged monthly submissions from 1992 to 1997 and
during the first 9 months of 1998.
1
On behalf of the Editorial Team.
Fig. 2. Acceptance rate of manuscripts submitted in 1995 till 1997 and
over the first 200 completely handled manuscripts in 1998.
0008-6363 / 99 / $ – see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0008-6363( 98 )00309-5
T. Opthof / Cardiovascular Research 41 (1999) 1 – 4
2
acceptance rate of just below 35%. For 1998 an acceptance
rate of just over 26% is anticipated. However, this figure,
which will probably also apply for 1999, includes letters to
the Editor, reviews, three focused issues and Editorials.
The latter category will be increased in order to highlight
papers of special interest. Therefore, we think it is fair to
state that the actual acceptance rate of original papers for
regular issues of Cardiovascular Research is about 20%.
This seems to us the lowest limit which still permits
adequate decision making based on both quality and
priority considerations.
3. Rapid review system
We are keen to maintain a rapid review system. Reviewers responding within 21 days after agreeing on reviewing
a manuscript for Cardiovascular Research receive a
compact disk of their choice. This is facilitated by a grant
of Knoll AG. Fig. 3 shows that despite the increased
number of submissions, the time to an initial decision has
improved with more than one day from 1995–1997 to
1998. This may seem not much for a particular author, but
with 90 manuscripts per month, this requires a great deal
of work in the Editorial Office. This task has been
performed by the Journal Managers Nicole Mommertz and
Yvonne Zwiers with the assistance of Maaike van Dartel
and Anne van der Valk. It goes without saying that these
brief decision times are only possible by the cooperation of
Fig. 4. Time needed for a first Editorial decision. Arrows along the
abscissa: 1st: deadline for reviewers to qualify for a CD; 2nd: our
self-imposed deadline (after chasing non responding reviewers on day 22
and, if not successful, again at day 25); 3rd: guarantee at 42 days.
our reviewers. Fig. 4 shows the initial days for a first
Editorial decision in bins of days for 1998. The first arrow
along the abscissa shows the reviewer’s deadline for
obtaining their CD. At 21 days we are able to make 23%
of our decisions. On day 22 the reviewers are reminded of
the deadline and if this does not lead to success this is
repeated on day 25. On day 27 (2nd arrow along abscissa)
we have decided on 62% of manuscripts, which is substantially better than the 55% in 1997. At our guarantee date
(42 days, 3rd arrow along abscissa) 99.6% of decisions has
been made compared to 97% in preceding years. Although
the Editorial Team prefers quality of the review process
over speed, it is fair –especially with decreasing acceptance rates– that the review process is as rapid as possible.
4. Impact factor
Fig. 3. Time needed for a first Editorial decision since taking office.
Fig. 5 shows the impact factor of Cardiovascular
Research during the last quarter of this century. In 1993,
i.e. based on the contents of 199111992, the impact factor
started to increase for the first time above 2.00. More
recent impact factors were 2.89 (1994), 3.49 (1995), 3.26
(1996) and 2.88 (1997). It is fair to stress that even the
impact factor of l997, based on the contents of 19951
1996, reflects for 80% the work of the previous Editorial
Team. Not all issues of a journal have an equal effect on
the impact factor. As explained above, impact factors are
calculated by dividing citations obtained in year X to
T. Opthof / Cardiovascular Research 41 (1999) 1 – 4
Fig. 5. Impact factor of Cardiovascular Research from 1975 until 1997.
papers published in the years (X21)1(X22) divided by
the total number of papers published in the years (X21)1
(X22). Thus, citations in 1997 to papers in the issues
3
published between January 1995 and December 1996 make
up the impact factor of 1997. Obviously, some time must
elapse before a paper which cites a previous paper appears
in print. The estimated ‘‘dead time’’ is between 10 and 12
months. Therefore, a paper published in the January issue
of 1995 has a much greater chance of being cited in 1997
than a paper published in the December issue of 1996,
which in fact may at best make its appearance in the
November or December issues of journals published in
1997. For individual issues of Cardiovascular Research
we have removed this unequal influence on the official
impact factor by giving each issue the same time window
for citation, from 12 to 24 months after publication.
Fig. 6 shows these ‘‘impact factors’’ of individual
issues from January 1992 (9201) till July 1996 (*9607*).
Focused issues have been marked with ‘‘*’’. The horizontal dashed line indicates the average (3.13) of the official
impact factor of the years 1994–1997 to which the issues
published since January 1992 contributed. The vertical
dashed line separates issues exlusively managed by the
previous Editorial Team and the ones handled in majority
by the present team. The first issue exclusively handled by
the present Editorial Team is the September 1996 issue
(not yet in the graph). Just before the vertical dashed line 8
out of 10 issues did not meet the averaged impact factor.
Fig. 6. ‘Impact factors‘ of individual issues of Cardiovascular Research from January 1992 (9201) till July 1996 (*9607*). Focused issues have been
marked by ‘*‘. *96E‘ marks an extra focused issue published in February 1996. See text for explanation of the calculations. Horizontal dashed line:
average impact factor of 1994-1997 (3.13). Vertical dashed line: Left: issues exclusively handled by the previous Editorial Team. Right: issues in majority
handled by the present Editorial Team. Starting September 1996 all issues were exclusively handled by the present team.
T. Opthof / Cardiovascular Research 41 (1999) 1 – 4
4
From the 4 most recent issues 3 exceed this value. For this
reason the present team is confident to be able to maintain
a high impact factor.
References
[1] Opthof T. on behalf of the Editorial Team of Cardiovascular
Research. How to handle an over 25% increase in submissions.
Cardiovasc Res 1998;37:1–2.
[2] Opthof T. on behalf of the Editorial Team of Cardiovascular
Research. Geographical shifts in submissions. Cardiovasc Res
1998;38:1–2.
[3] Opthof T. on behalf of the Editorial Team of Cardiovascular
Research. Increase in submissions from Europe –from where ans
since when? Cardiovasc Res 1998;39:261–262.
[4] Editorial. Cardiovascular Research enters top 10 of the cardiovascular category. Cardiovasc Res 1996; 32: 987.
[5] Opthof T. Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovasc
Res 1997;33:1–7.
[6] Coronel R. on behalf of the Editorial Team of Cardiovascular
Research. A year in retrospect. Cardiovasc Res 1996;32:191–193.