Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Implementation Science and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Editorial

Implementation Science six years on—our evolving scope and common reasons for rejection without review

Martin P Eccles1*, Robbie Foy2, Anne Sales3, Michel Wensing4 and Brian Mittman5

Author Affiliations

1 Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, The Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK

2 Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Charles Thackrah Building, University of Leeds, 101 Clarendon Road, Leeds, LS2 9LJ, UK

3 VA Inpatient Evaluation Center, Ann Arbor VA HSR&D Center of Excellence, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

4 Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands

5 VA Center for Implementation Practice and Research Support, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, 16111 Plummer Street, Sepulveda, CA, 91343, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

Implementation Science 2012, 7:71  doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-71

Published: 27 July 2012

Abstract

Implementation Science has been published for six years and over that time has gone from receiving 100 articles in 2006 to receiving 354 in 2011; our impact factor has risen from 2.49 in June 2010 to 3.10 in June 2012. Whilst our article publication rate has also risen, it has risen much less slowly than our submission rate—we published 29 papers in 2006 and 134 papers in 2011 and we now publish only around 40 % of submissions. About one-half of submitted manuscripts are rejected without being sent out for peer review; it has become clear that there are a number of common issues that result in manuscripts being rejected at this stage. We hope that by publishing this editorial on our common reasons for rejection without peer review we can help authors to better judge the relevance of their papers to Implementation Science.