| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The mere thought of an organized discussion concerning any increase in the worldwide integration of national economic interests definitely stirs a certain segment of the population. Chum the waters by calling a meeting anywhere in the world to discuss the world economy, pick a city like Davos or Seattle, and see who rises to the bait. A motley crew is sure to swarm to protest: greenies, unionists, anarchists, self-proclaimed spokespersons for the poor, activists of multivarious stripe, and, of course, those who simply just like to raise hell. Many will be sandaled, headbanded, tiedyed, knapsacked, and otherwise dressed in the finery of Eddie Bauer or other provisioners of those given to the great outdoors. A fair percentage of protestors will come directly from encampments where they have received formal indoctrination in protestation and have honed their skills in the disruption of civil proceedings. All this globalization is troublesome; stop the world, they want to get off.
The concerns of others notwithstanding, we are certainly into globalization here at the AJR. Just look at last year's statistics compiled by Jenkins [1] of the Editorial Office at the Journal. We receive so much mail from outside the United States that I am afraid that those who fear such international trends are going to express their concerns. Some mornings after the mail arrives, we check outside to see if some of them have assembled to protest our activities. To date, we have yet to spot an assemblage of the tie-dyed and headbanded crowd about our offices. Nor has there been evidence of police in riot gear or even a whiff of tear gas in the air. So far, so good!
Within last year's statistics, you will note that, for the year 2000, and for the first time ever, the AJR received more submissions from outside than inside the U. S. of A. To be exact, 51.6%, a clear majority, came from corresponding authors who are beyond our borders. OK, on closer examination, I recognize that our colleagues from Canada may be upset that Canadian submissions are counted separately—that is to say, not included in the count with those from the United States as, perhaps, submissions from North America. Such Canadians may have a point; maybe their manuscripts should be so classified. Indeed, if submissions were to be counted in that fashion, a slight majority of last year's submissions to the AJR, 941 versus 906, would have originated in North America.
And a small number of submissions, certainly no more than 20 to 25 a year, are from corresponding authors who now live outside the United States but who report on work done with coauthors in the United States during fellowship training performed here. But these quibbles are beside the point; an increasing number of submissions to the AJR originate from outside the United States.
We recognize and greatly appreciate the significant effort that many of these foreign authors must make to produce a scientific manuscript in other than their native tongue. To anyone in the United States, this is an awesome linguistic accomplishment and one worthy of praise, grateful thanks, and commendation. So our formal thanks go out to all these authors, both successful and unsuccessful, for thinking enough of our Journal to allow us the privilege of reviewing their work.
Not only do most of our foreign contributors have to work harder than English-speaking authors to submit manuscripts in what is—for foreign contributors—their second or third language, but once the manuscript is completed, these contributors are faced with the prospect of a higher rejection rate than authors from the United States. The higher rejection rate of foreign manuscripts is based on a combination of factors: not only on difficulties with the language, but also on regional and national differences in the incidence and importance of various diseases, such as the relatively high incidence and importance of hydatid disease and hepatocellular carcinoma in some parts of the world and their comparatively low incidence in the United States. Fortunately for all of us, our foreign contributors persist in the face of these inherent difficulties and are to be commended for their diligence.
The major concern that arises from a review of these statistics compiled by Jenkins [1] is the overall drop in the number of submissions (approximately 11%), from 2073 manuscripts in 1999 to 1847 in 2000. Admittedly, the AJR received an all-time high number of submissions in 1999. So maybe a decrease in the number of submissions was to be expected. Nonetheless, this turn of events in worrisome.
Note that this drop in the number of submissions involved both domestic and foreign sources. The countries that had the greatest decrease in the number of submissions were the United States, Canada, and France. It is said that, as a result of demands created by changes in the health care environment in North America, academic radiologists have more clinical responsibilities and less time for academic pursuits. Maybe that is also true in France. On the other hand, submissions from countries such as Turkey, Taiwan, and Belgium actually increased.
The internationalization of the Journal is the culmination of a trend that was first noted more than 20 years ago and has been chronicled intermittently in the pages of the Journal ever since [2,3,4]. In 1999, we first gave a detailed report on the source of submissions to the Journal for the years 1998 and 1997 [5] and are pleased to do so now for the years 2000 and 1999. It is likely that this report will become a regular feature for two reasons. First, we wish to formally acknowledge the contributions of those authors from beyond our borders and thank them for their efforts on behalf of our readership. Second, we want to make our readers aware of the wide geographic distribution of the source of AJR manuscripts.
As a result of this increasing international participation, the AJR is now the American Journal of Roentgenology in name only. In actual fact, it has become an international journal, authored and read by radiologists the world over.
In short, globalization has worked well for radiology and radiologists. There is certainly no need for us to mount a charge of the barricades in protest. And we hope that, for all the peoples of the world, globalization will ultimately succeed this way in other international endeavors.
References
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Y. Chen, C. B. Jenkins, and A. D. Elster Internationalization of the American Journal of Roentgenology: 1980-2002 Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2003; 181(4): 907 - 912. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
