- Email: [email protected]
Our Sunday Best
EDITOR'S
NOTE
OUf
Sunday Best
Say hello to an old friend with a new look! Lost some weight. A bit more stylish to look at. Will appear on your doorstep more often. Nine times this year. On its way to twelve. Wait. Don't tell me. You hate change. It was fine the way it was. Why the changes, you ask. Well, I have some news for you. The changes were made to fit the growing needs of the Journal, and they dovetail nicely with the wishes of our readers, too. Call it good planning. Call it blind luck. That's right. The readership survey commissioned by the Academy and reported by President Ayres in the November issue had plenty to say about the Journal's looks and content. If you're the average reader, you found the Journal too big and the type too small. That's been fixed. Okay, what about color? Still bright orange. "Come on. Orange is for traffic cones. Or life vests. Not medical journals." Hold on just a minute. You call it the "Orange Journal," don't you? At least that's what our readers tell us. So orange may not be beautiful, but we've grown up with it, and we'll keep it. Don't get me wrong. The important thing isn't the looks. The important thing is what's inside. Good news there. If you're the average subscriber, you read a whopping HALF OR MORE of each issue. But never mind that. Let's go into your specificlikes and dislikes.What do you like the most about the Journal? "It's comprehensive." "It's current." "It's authoritative." "It's relevant." That's what you say you like the most. But never mind that. Which parts of the Journal do you like the most? Answer: the review articles that lead off each issue are the clear winners. Those articles that integrate research findings, articles that connect the dotted lines in our field. Because there's one for each issue, more frequent publication will automatically take care of your vote for more. What about the rest of the Journal? Specifically, the data-based research articles that make up most of it. How do you rate them? Well, if a score of 1 means high interest, 2 moderate interest, and 3 low interest, where do research articles come out? 2.a? 2.5? 2.8? The answer: 1.6. That's right. We're talking moderate to high interest in original research articles by 90% of the readership surveyed. Higher than Case Studies. Higher than Grand Rounds. Or even Letters to the Editor. Fine. But what do our readers like least? Here the comments formed a spectrum from "nothing" all the way to "too technical." Finally, if you could change one thing about the format, what would you change? Again, a range from "just fine as is" to "more how-to-do-its." Or as one wag put it, "more clinically relevant research so I can cure all my patients." I think we've spotted a couple of things in some of the brass knuckles answers to these two questions. First, the transition state of our field, and second, an asymmetry in the Journal that reflects that transition. Here's what I mean. The Journal has a double mission: building our scientific knowledge base and providing the latest information for clinical practice. The knowledge part seems to be going well. Original research in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry is increasing by leaps and bounds. The pace is unprecedented in our history. But there's no getting around it. New treatment strategies have been in short supply. Not enough good clinical trials. Diagnosis-specific treatments still down the road. Things change; that will change, too. But what do we do in the meantime? First, the scientific knowledge base. It's the heart of our Journal. No change in direction. No lowering of standards. But look for clinical relevance in the discussion section of the research articles. Researchers are going beyond the presentation of data, considering the implications of their findings for practice. What's more, there's a new feature in this issue called Clinical Perspectives, edited by Michael Jellinek, assisted by Joseph Biederman. High on the idea index and low on design index. That's right. Practical guidelines for psychotherapy and psychopharmacology on a regular basis. There you have it. This readership survey commissioned by the Academy sampled a wide range of readers with findings that have a 95% confidence interval. The independent survey concluded that by all measures our Journal is the standard for the field of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. And so it should be. For that you can thank the researchers who write the articles and the reviewers who critique and polish them. They're the ones who do the heavy lifting. Let's face it. Our work's just beginning. But big things are happening in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. And the Journal will bring them to you. You can count on it. J. McD.
J. AM. ACAD. CHILD ADOLESC. PSYCHIATRY, 33:1, JANUARY 1994
1
NOTE
OUf
Sunday Best
Say hello to an old friend with a new look! Lost some weight. A bit more stylish to look at. Will appear on your doorstep more often. Nine times this year. On its way to twelve. Wait. Don't tell me. You hate change. It was fine the way it was. Why the changes, you ask. Well, I have some news for you. The changes were made to fit the growing needs of the Journal, and they dovetail nicely with the wishes of our readers, too. Call it good planning. Call it blind luck. That's right. The readership survey commissioned by the Academy and reported by President Ayres in the November issue had plenty to say about the Journal's looks and content. If you're the average reader, you found the Journal too big and the type too small. That's been fixed. Okay, what about color? Still bright orange. "Come on. Orange is for traffic cones. Or life vests. Not medical journals." Hold on just a minute. You call it the "Orange Journal," don't you? At least that's what our readers tell us. So orange may not be beautiful, but we've grown up with it, and we'll keep it. Don't get me wrong. The important thing isn't the looks. The important thing is what's inside. Good news there. If you're the average subscriber, you read a whopping HALF OR MORE of each issue. But never mind that. Let's go into your specificlikes and dislikes.What do you like the most about the Journal? "It's comprehensive." "It's current." "It's authoritative." "It's relevant." That's what you say you like the most. But never mind that. Which parts of the Journal do you like the most? Answer: the review articles that lead off each issue are the clear winners. Those articles that integrate research findings, articles that connect the dotted lines in our field. Because there's one for each issue, more frequent publication will automatically take care of your vote for more. What about the rest of the Journal? Specifically, the data-based research articles that make up most of it. How do you rate them? Well, if a score of 1 means high interest, 2 moderate interest, and 3 low interest, where do research articles come out? 2.a? 2.5? 2.8? The answer: 1.6. That's right. We're talking moderate to high interest in original research articles by 90% of the readership surveyed. Higher than Case Studies. Higher than Grand Rounds. Or even Letters to the Editor. Fine. But what do our readers like least? Here the comments formed a spectrum from "nothing" all the way to "too technical." Finally, if you could change one thing about the format, what would you change? Again, a range from "just fine as is" to "more how-to-do-its." Or as one wag put it, "more clinically relevant research so I can cure all my patients." I think we've spotted a couple of things in some of the brass knuckles answers to these two questions. First, the transition state of our field, and second, an asymmetry in the Journal that reflects that transition. Here's what I mean. The Journal has a double mission: building our scientific knowledge base and providing the latest information for clinical practice. The knowledge part seems to be going well. Original research in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry is increasing by leaps and bounds. The pace is unprecedented in our history. But there's no getting around it. New treatment strategies have been in short supply. Not enough good clinical trials. Diagnosis-specific treatments still down the road. Things change; that will change, too. But what do we do in the meantime? First, the scientific knowledge base. It's the heart of our Journal. No change in direction. No lowering of standards. But look for clinical relevance in the discussion section of the research articles. Researchers are going beyond the presentation of data, considering the implications of their findings for practice. What's more, there's a new feature in this issue called Clinical Perspectives, edited by Michael Jellinek, assisted by Joseph Biederman. High on the idea index and low on design index. That's right. Practical guidelines for psychotherapy and psychopharmacology on a regular basis. There you have it. This readership survey commissioned by the Academy sampled a wide range of readers with findings that have a 95% confidence interval. The independent survey concluded that by all measures our Journal is the standard for the field of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. And so it should be. For that you can thank the researchers who write the articles and the reviewers who critique and polish them. They're the ones who do the heavy lifting. Let's face it. Our work's just beginning. But big things are happening in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. And the Journal will bring them to you. You can count on it. J. McD.
J. AM. ACAD. CHILD ADOLESC. PSYCHIATRY, 33:1, JANUARY 1994
1