EDITORIAL

“It is Much More Difficult to Judge Oneself

than to Judge Othersyy
(dntoine de Saint-Exupdry, The Little Prince, 1943)

In any enterprise, the time comes to evaluate the traveled path, judge the present, size
achievement, sound deficiencies, and then look into that crystal ball, t o formulate a
plan of action to get us to a great future. If we miss the target, we can repeat the
process tomorrow! This is part and parcel of long-term planning, and nobody wants to
be caught not doing it. The idea of an evaluation is not usually brought on by success;
rather it grows out of a general discomfort or unrest with the status quo.

There are a host of means to measure the quality of journal production and a
multitude of ways by which we can probe the preferences of its consumers. (I use
“consumer” broadly, to include authors and readers alike). The mail survey is a popular
and relatively thrifty way to obtain some of this information and, to be fair, a survey is
best conducted by an independent organization. A suitable questionnaire is developed
and the targeted population is kindly requested to address the queries and mark their
preferences. Responses are then analyzed, and the gathered information is used to
improve and sell more of the product, which, in the case of a journal, means an increase
in paid circulation.

Last year, John Wiley & Sons commissioned a survey of the “readership” of Head &
Neck Surgery. Six hundred questionnaires were mailed out and 40% of the readers
responded. Although I wonder what information we were denied by the 60%
nonresponders, I am assured by the experts that the sample of responders was
significant. Even without the help of today’s computers, Cervantes (Don Quixote de la
Manchu) told us, “by a small sample we may judge of the whole piece.” We appreciate
the time and effort of those 200-plus readers who responded and told us that 54% read
every issue, gleaning information from what was published. Overall, the comments
were complimentary and, with a few exceptions, the ratings were high and favorable.
Some preferred research articles, whereas an equal number favored clinical reports.
Review articles received a generally mixed rating. The quality of printing and the
quality and quantity of illustrations either satisfied or dissatisfied the respondents.
These were not the only antipodes, for some readers stated that it was “the best head
and neck journal available” and others accused us of publishing articles that had been
rejected by other journals. (Indeed, it is true that rejections for publication by one
journal may be more appropriate for another journal.) Although the results of the
survey were gratifying, this Editor wondered how to use the gathered information to
strengthen and enhance the value of our journal.

Editorial HEAD & NECK SURGERY Nov/Dec 1986 75

1 do not deny the importance of reader-subscriber response, but readership satisfaction
by and in itself does not promote or broaden the acceptance of a journal, and seldom
will it boost circulation. There may be more tangible and certainly more desirable
measurements. For example, the strong, established flagship scientific magazines boast
of being overwhelmed by manuscripts submitted in an ever-increasing stream from
authors who wish to herald to the world the results of their scientific endeavors and the
products of their academic and scholastic pursuits. I know of no editor nor publisher
who would not recognize this as a reliable measure of success. “Authors” need not be
surveyed; they supply spontaneous answers and speak their minds throughout the
manuscript submission process.

T h e finest journals of every specialty usually have the highest number of submissions,
and their editors brag about their high rejection rates. When the flood of such papers
approaches the tolerance of the gates, the editors like to increase the number of
editorial pages but must abide by fiscal and other limitations.

Although the number of submissions and percentage of rejections are considered by

many to be accurate gauges of a journal’s success, other, more objective measurements
could be advanced. Certainly, citation in Science Citation Zndex, Zndex Medicus, Current
Contents, or some other cumulative indexing resource is an easily quantifiable
measurement of a journal’s success or acceptability. The total number of editorial pages
and the annual frequency of publication will be considered by other critics as a decisive
determinant. On the one hand, these measurements are quantitatively evaluable; on
the other, they are subjective.

Most editors would accept the value of all these measurements, but they would likely
give highest priority to the level of the scientific content exhibited by the journal. This,
above all, is the truest measurement of a journal’s success, in this Editor’s opinion.
Regardless of the yardstick, the reader, the author, the editor, and the publisher are
thrown together in the pursuit of “success.” Whatever your role, I appreciate your
scholastic help in this quest.

Helmuth Goepfert, MD
Editor

76 Editorial HEAD & NECK SURGERY Nov/Dec 1986