904 COMMENTARIES Biros, Adams • AEM IN 2001 AEM—State of the Journal, 2001* T he editors of Academic Emergency Medicine are pleased to provide you with this journal report for 2000. This has been the seventh year of publi- cation for the journal, and while the look, content, editors and contributors have changed over time, we remain committed to the production of a high-quality spokespiece for our academic and clinical specialty. We have bene- fited from your input, and wel- come your questions, comments, and suggestions; please feel free to contact any of the editors at any time. This year, the journal became available online (www.aemj.org). From October 2000 to March 2001, our site was hit 37,725 times. The most frequently hit journal section was Clinical In- vestigations (6,100 hits), fol- lowed by Brief Reports (2,868), Clinical Practice (2,849), and Basic Investigations (1,802) (Ta- ble 1). We can also track, on a monthly basis, who is accessing the website (Table 2). In addition to seeing the con- tents of the current month’s jour- nal, the online journal also pro- vides abstracts of all articles published in AEM, and full text from 1999. Many additional spe- cial features make the online journal very useful to authors and readers alike. References listed in published articles can be accessed directly from our website. Other articles by the same author or articles of similar content are linked to published articles. By tracking the number of hits we receive, we are able to provide our readers with lists of the most frequently cited (Table 3) and most frequently read (Ta- *Adapted with permission from: Biros MH, Adams J. Academic Emergency Medicine annual report. SAEM News- lett. 2001; XIII(3):4–5. ble 1) articles in any month, over the year, or since the beginning of the journal’s publication his- tory. We have periodically pro- vided this information in the journal, and will continue to do so both in the journal and in the SAEM newsletter. We are also exploring links with funding agencies, research foundations, and other potential sources of re- search and educational support. Based on the manuscript checklist provided at the time of manuscript submission, we are able to track ‘‘hot topics’’ in cur- rent emergency medicine re- search and education, as defined by the submitting authors (Table 4). This tracking allows us to ex- amine where we are with our spe- cialty’s academic evolution and where we might as a journal fos- ter additional growth and devel- opment. The manuscript check- list is a vital step in our review process as well; the categories designated on this list by the sub- mitting authors drive the assign- ments of the associate (decision) editors responsible for processing the manuscripts, and the review- ers who will provide peer review. Careful consideration of these categories will speed the entire process, and we encourage our authors to carefully consider this when they submit their original works. We will continue the pol- icy of providing only consensus reviews to the authors; this ad- ditional step in the review pro- cess reduces redundancy or con- tradiction in the manuscript review process. The consensus re- view has been popular with our authors, who often relate that the reviews are easy to understand and address. Copies of our con- sensus reviews are also usually supplied to the peer reviewers. Comparing their reviews with the overall assessment of the manu- script provides feedback and a learning tool for our reviewers. Again this year, the journal has demonstrated continued tan- gible growth. Our subscriptions have topped over 6,000. Our im- pact factor, calculated only for the last three years, has in- creased from just over 1 in 1998 to a respectable 1.75 for 1999. From January 1 to December 31, 2000, we received 578 manu- scripts. As of this writing, deci- sions have been made on 574 (a few revisions have not yet been received), with an overall accep- tance rate of 39%. The average time to first decisions in 2000 was 35.4 days, and for revisions, decisions were rendered in an average of 13.4 days. The overall turnaround time was 28.3 days. A large number of our manu- scripts are submitted electroni- cally (send to aem@saem.org); this speeds their in-house re- view, their distribution to deci- sion editors, and their delivery to peer reviewers. We also receive most of our peer reviews elec- tronically; undoubtedly this has helped keep our turnaround times very reasonable. We believe our journal has re- sponsibilities beyond the publi- cation of excellent and relevant original reports of basic, clinical, and educational advances. As a vehicle for the dissemination of thoughts and visions of emer- gency medicine academicians, educators, and clinicians, we have the opportunity to call at- tention to special concerns of our practice. With this in mind, we convened a consensus conference in May 2000, on ‘‘Errors in Emer- gency Medicine,’’ with the pur- pose of critical education, provoc- ative and thoughtful discussion, and creative development of re- search and educational initia- tives surrounding this important concept. Lead by Dr. Bob Wears, this conference was held in con- junction with the SAEM annual meeting, and attended by over 90 individuals with diverse back- grounds and from many coun-