From kitchen table to electronic editorial office: the evolution of the journal

Rather than anticipate the progress of the journal as seen from the eyes of the editorial triptych, later in this supplement, this retrospect concentrates on how the content of the journal, and the editorial processes have changed over the last 25 years.

The first issue of the journal was put together on the kitchen table, as Nicky Whitsed reported in her tribute to Shane Godbolt on her retirement as founding editor.¹ How the journal came into being is covered in Shane's contribution. But we owe a great debt to Shane for her dedication and hard work in bringing the journal to a place of eminence as an important source for health care librarians world wide.

Content and its changing nature

As well as original articles the first issues of the journal included the following sections:

Most of these sections were later transferred to the Newsletter, indicated by the dates above. Only original articles and columns (now Regular Features) remain. In 1989 Brief Communications were introduced. These were intended for anyone wishing to write a short piece about any matter of current professional concern.² They did not need an abstract and were not peer reviewed. They continued until 2007 when the distinction between Brief Communications and Original Articles became blurred. Articles of any length between 1000 and 5000 words can now be submitted, all are peer reviewed.

It is essential that the contents of the journal represent the interests of its readers. Members of the Medical Health and Welfare Libraries Group (MHWLG) later the Health Libraries Group (HLG) have very diverse interests which range from those working in the NHS, through academic, voluntary, community and social sectors, covering the whole field of health care. To cover all interests has been our aim but inevitably the balance has been weighted towards medical and health care librarians working in the NHS and academic sectors.

The field of health care librarianship has changed dramatically since 1984.³ As attested to later in this issue, the fact that information can affect patient care and that librarians should be accountable for the information they supply was first advanced by Eugene Garfield in 1985.⁴ Increasing pressure on health professionals to adopt evidence-based practice has placed demands on the information professionals who support them. This emphasis on evidence-based practice, the need for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials together with advances in technology, the establishment of organizations such as the Cochrane Collaboration in 1992 and the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination in 1994^5–7 have all had an impact on the published articles. Topics such as the clinical librarian, systematic reviews, impact of library services and evidence-based librarianship have abounded in recent years. A snapshot of this change is illustrated by the changing nature of the columns over the years (Fig. 1).

From 1994 one issue each year was designated as a themed issue. The Readership Survey in 1999 showed these to be unpopular. Readers not interested in the topic of a particular theme felt they were not getting value for their subscription. However from 2003 additional funds were obtained to publish themed issues as free supplements.

In the last two decades great changes have taken place in the world of health care librarianship. Cross disciplinary partnerships, librarians working with health professionals and health professionals’ own growing interest in reliable, accurate information have produced new and important needs. The new A4 format and cover in 2000, and the new title the following year, encouraged a wider readership and a broader author base⁸ as seen in the Analysis of throughput later in this issue.

The editorial process: challenges and changes

The pressures on an editor to produce a high quality internationally recognized journal are great. Shane would often work long into the evening and at weekends to ensure that every detail was covered.¹ To ease the burden Gail Lee was appointed as Editorial Assistant in 1994. Gail was able to deal with all the correspondence, communication with Blackwells and proof reading. But as the journal progressed it became apparent that more help was needed.

Following my retirement from the BMA library I was offered the job of Assistant Editor. I had never considered myself a writer. Indeed my first article submitted to the journal was rejected! (albeit later published elsewhere).⁹ I later wrote two book reviews and a meetings report, which were published in HLR, more appropriate early contributions to a peer reviewed journal.^10–12 So it was with excitement and a fair amount of apprehension that I took on the Assistant Editor role. Set up with computer, printer and fax I was able to work from home. At this time correspondence and articles were sent by post, with inevitable delays. I had not realized just how much work is involved in editing a quarterly journal; the relentless round of publication, getting articles written, seeking referees, corresponding with and chasing referees, corresponding with authors, editing copy, making sure there is sufficient copy for the next issue and proof reading.

My appointment coincided with Margaret Forrest being appointed as Editor for the Newsletter and Associate Editor of the journal. We now had a team of four. Under Judy Palmer's editorship the editorial process was streamlined, regular quarterly team meetings were set up and work progressed with issues being published on time, something which had previously been a struggle. Later, under Graham Walton's editorship, team meeting included the editors of columns/regular features and guest editors for the theme issue for that year. Meetings became much more strategic, the business of deciding the contents of each issue being reserved for email correspondence between the Editor and Assistant Editor. As copy flow increased the burden was more on controlling copy than on commissioning and chasing promised articles.

To many librarians the thought of writing a 2500–5000 word article is a daunting prospect. We have always tried to encourage new authors to start by possibly writing a book review or meetings report before launching into a Brief Communication or even a full scale peer reviewed article. Under Graham Walton's editorship Editorial Board members were encouraged to act as mentors for new authors. This practice has continued successfully.

The Impact Factor (IF) of a journal reflects the frequency with which its articles are cited. It has long been thought that the quality of a journal is shown by its IF.^13,14 After an unsuccessful first attempt to obtain an IF, we continued to work towards this goal. One of the aims in the journal's Strategic Plan 2003–2006 was to obtain an IF. This was achieved within the projected timescale.¹⁵

The editorial process was running smoothly. We now had an Editorial Assistant in house at Wiley-Blackwell, strengthening the link between publisher and journal. At this time all correspondence and articles were sent electronically. Individual letters including referees’ comments were compiled and sent to each author, a time consuming process. No more the fax, but broadband soon became a necessity. So when it was suggested that we go over to an electronic editorial office the news was greeted with apprehension. The old method might be time consuming but it worked and we felt comfortable with it. But it was obviously the way to go, so in August 2006 all the editorial processes were transferred to Manuscript Central (MC). It was a steep learning curve and inevitably there were problems. But now that MC has been in operation for over 2 years we are seeing the advantages in reducing workload, better reporting and statistics and ease of use for both authors and referees. We would not want to go back to the manual system. So it really has been a journey from kitchen table to electronic editorial office.

Conflicts of interest

PB has declared no conflicts.

The following timeline seeks to place the changes and developments during the lifetime of the journal to date against a backdrop of the changing scene within the health library and information profession and its wider context.