Journal of the American Dietetic Association Editor-In-Chief Report Spring 2006

Since becoming Editor-In-Chief (EIC) in June 2003, my primary goal has been to enhance the scientific quality and clinical applications published in the Journal, thereby strengthening its mission as the premier source of credible research and practice information representing all areas of dietetics. In order to achieve this goal, every aspect of the Journal content has been reviewed, taking into consideration input from the outstanding and diverse group of dietetics professionals who serve as members of the Board of Editors (BOE) as well as feedback from the Reader Surveys that have further shaped and guided certain decisions. Likewise, the outstanding staff that has been assembled to help conduct the day-to-day operations has contributed greatly to the progress, innovations and accomplishments achieved over the past three years. Some highlights are summarized below:

  • Because medical nutrition education is strategic to successful Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) as well as promoting diet and nutritional assessment in the prevention and treatment of disease, in Spring 2005, for the first time, the Journal began offering Continuing Medical Education (CME) credit at no cost. Simultaneously, Continuing Professional Education (CPE) credit was offered at no cost to ADA members. As of first quarter 2006, over 12,000 free CPE articles have been submitted for credit.
  • Another new series of articles has debuted this year, with the September launch (bi-monthly) of a column written for the Journal by the Surgeon General. Dr. Carmona was a keynote speaker at FNCE 2003 and has expressed great support for the importance of diet and nutrition and dietetics professionals as the experts in this field.
  • A supplement to the Journal on the topic of obesity was published and circulated to all members in May 2005. The supplement concept was initiated within the Journal office and Sachiko St. Jeor, PhD, RD, was invited to serve as guest editor. Because of the newly acquired CME component, also for the first time, the Journal Obesity Supplement was mailed to a constituency outside the ADA members—including over 8,000 U.S. physicians with specialty areas related to obesity prevention and treatment.
  • In January 2006, FITS II, a follow-up to the popular FITS I study, was published with Elaine Monsen, Editor Emeritus, serving as the guest editor and Deborah Shattuck, previously assistant to the editor, serving as her assistant.
  • Also this year, and with the unanimous support and encouragement of the BOE, a new review series was launched in the Journal on the emerging and growing topic of nutrigenomics. The series will continue through 2007. The guest editor for this series is BOE member Ruth Debusk, PhD, RD. Feedback has been very positive. It is anticipated that this series will be considered highly relevant by all levels of members and the CME readers, as well as providing useful, timely and greatly valued teaching material. The BOE is actively seeking authors or volunteering themselves to write papers pertaining to a broad spectrum of other emerging topics as well.
  • In order to enhance the success of future authors, the Statistics Team, a subset of the BOE, for the first time is in the process of publishing a series of papers regarding nutrition research design and analyses, quality control procedures and other essential elements related to credible research conduct. A detailed review of the Author Guidelines was also achieved and newly revised and enhanced Author Guidelines will accompany the first statistics review paper to be published in January 2006.
  • Because the future of the Journal is in large part contingent upon the ongoing interest and contributions from students of nutrition and dietetics, a new program to foster and mentor student-authored research articles is currently under way. A task force of interested BOE members along with key dietetics educators has been convened to develop a plan for encouraging and supporting students to reach the same standards of excellence expected from any authors within the Journal.
  • Because Impact Factor is strongly influenced by review articles, active recruitment of qualified authors and relevant topics is under way.
  • A series of articles on food management topics is also being recruited to better represent this area of dietetics practitioners.

According to the ADA 2004 Needs Assessment Survey, the Journal remains the third most important reason why members join ADA initially and why they renew their membership, surpassed only by “profession’s leading organization” and “professional/career development,” as the number one and two reasons, respectively. Among the newer offerings, the online Journal was surpassed only by the ADA Times in importance. Journal articles with free CPE were rated as the most desirable prospective ADA benefit and were subsequently implemented. The Journal is also a core offering that has engendered expressions of dissatisfaction among significant fractions of members. Some of these individuals suggest greater emphasis on publishing material based on practice techniques and new areas of practice and/or to provide a “less scholarly” journal, that is, written more like Today’s Dietitian. While the Journal’s mission is clearly different, great attention is being focused on how best to provide meaningful content for this subgroup of members without compromising the scientific integrity and academic rigor of the Journal. Addressing this discrepancy between ratings of importance versus overall satisfaction and finding approaches to help close this gap will be a major focus of the February 9 to 10, 2006 BOE meeting in Chicago.

Conversely, it is gratifying to report that the Journal’s impact factor has been increasing for the past three years, as depicted by the graph below. This increase is deemed attributable to the enhanced scientific rigor and broadened topical interest of research articles, as well as an increased number of review articles and theme-based issues.

Details of activities to increase the Journal’s appeal and quality, as well as outcomes are outlined below:

February 9-10, 2006 Board of Editors Meeting
The Board of Editors (BOE) met face-to-face February 9 to 10, 2006 in Chicago. A variety of topical issues were discussed including peer review, Journal-related data from recent member surveys, evidence-based research, promoting the Journal in the media and enhancing practice content. The need to preserve the quality of ADA’s scientific Journal while addressing the expressed need of members and prospective members was extensively discussed. The following potential practice enhancements were elucidated:

  1. Practice applications page at front (versus end of the article). Re-package and market what we have/are doing already.
  2. Reviews on topics we know (from member surveys) are desired.
  3. Research brief (combine request for news briefs and research summaries) items that have been in the news lately and are related to ADA’s emerging areas. RDs review research, written in a readable format.
  4. Invite practice articles on topics we know members want.
  5. Send readers to the “need to know” articles by making them the CPE articles (CPE articles were shown in Readex research 2005 to be most popular).
  6. Use results of the reader survey (topics in dietetics that members want to see) to enhance practice content. Trish Sheehan is soliciting clinical topics (e.g., she has solicited two on enteral and parenteral nutrition). Applied science comes out over and over in the open-ended reader’s comments. Members need to be able to understand the science and know how to readily apply it in practice.
  7. Last page of Journal--take the most clinically relevant paper and have a hands-on handout, form, etc., the practitioner can use.
  8. Online only content with power point for educators to easily share findings from articles.
  9. Select practice article titles to be highlighted on the Journal cover, in addition to research articles.

Outcomes:
Beginning in January 2004, Editorial Manager (an online manuscript submission review program) was launched, leading to simplification of author submission and manuscript review and to a decrease in the overall time frame from submission to publication for all peer reviewed articles. The following statistics show the positive effects that have been evidenced by this change:

Average time from manuscript submission to acceptance, June 2003 to present:

Pre-2003: 7 to10 months
2003: 6.5 months
2004: 5 months (began using Editorial Manager in 2004)
2005: 5 months

Average time from manuscript submission to publication, June 2003 to present:

Pre-2003: 12 to18 months (paper manuscripts)
2003: 17.5 months (paper manuscripts)
2004: 15 months (scheduling both EM and paper manuscripts)
2005: 11.5 months (EM manuscripts)

A randomly selected, statistically significant Reader Survey was conducted in 2003, 2004 and 2005 (see attached executive summary). This survey includes questions concerning the actual content of the Journal. The results have been utilized by the EIC’s office to make changes to Journal content. For example, Kim Thedford (Associate Editor) is working with the BOE to solicit articles on the 10 most popular topics identified by the Reader Survey.

Previously, there were no written Journal policies addressing some of the fundamental components of the Journal operations. The coordinated efforts of the ADA Journal Team and the EIC’s office have led to the development and implementation of certain policies and procedures, such as the nature and rationale for Commentaries as distinct from Research Editorials. Similarly, a Board of Editor Policy has also been written. The EIC staff, with helpful input from selected BOE members, has also worked with Journal staff to update/refine the Journal's Author Guidelines and Conflict of Interest policy to meet current and accepted practices in the field of scientific publishing. Finally, ADA has established formalized communications between the Journal and the dietetic practice groups (DPGs) through EIC and Journal office communication efforts at FNCE and via a mentorship program.

Specific changes implemented since January 2004 include:

  • Completed second full year of web-based manuscript submission system, Editorial Manager (reduced overall publication time from 15 months to 11.5 months).
  • Hired Patricia Sheean, PhD, RD as Research Editor (part-time) with specific expertise in clinical research, an often under-published topic area.
  • Hired Eileen Vincent, MS, RD, (part-time) to coordinate CME activities and write the (web) Sites in Review column, based on the leading topics within each issue.
  • Planned, organized and implemented an Obesity Supplement with Dr. Sachiko St. Jeor as Guest Editor, that was circulated in May 2005 to the entire membership for CPE credit and also self-funded distribution to over 8,000 physicians with expertise in relevant specialty areas.
  • Planned, organized and executed a BOE Conference call in July 2005.
  • Published a supplement to the Journal regarding the Gerber FITS research project.
  • Worked with dietetic practice groups to identify interests and concerns regarding potential topics of interest for publication.
  • Developed a mentorship program with the BOE and key representatives of various DPGs.
  • Introduced the concept of a series on nutrigenomics to be rolled out throughout 2005 to 2007 under the leadership of Dr. Ruth DeBusk.
  • Planned, organized and executed the BOE meeting in October 2005 at FNCE with special presentations regarding DRI use and accurate reporting, Impact Factor and how to improve it.
  • Worked with the CEO and ADA staff to update and establish Journal policies (i.e., Supplement Policy, Reviewer Policy, Conflict of Interest Policy).
  • Appointed three new BOE members and rotated three off.
  • Conducted successful recruitment campaign to add qualified reviewers for the Journal.

Plans for the Upcoming Year:

  • Work with BOE to further enhance practice content, hence improving member value without compromising the scientific integrity of the Journal.
  • Continue the nutrigenomic series, launch nutrition research design and analyses statistical series to facilitate new authors’ successful publications.
  • Develop and launch a student authors mentorship program to improve opportunities for students to write publishable papers.
  • Consider another supplement to the Journal, potentially on a practice-related topic.
  • Consider additional means for upgrading the quality of statistical review and study design critique.
  • Engage with specific BOE members on a regular basis regarding areas of expertise to enhance representation and publications.

Submitted by: Linda Van Horn

2005 Reader Survey

Journal of the American Dietetic Association EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose and Method
This report summarizes the results of mail survey conducted among a systematically selected sample of domestic recipients of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Data was collected from September 9 to October 25, 2005. Of the 2,000 sample members, 1,077 responded (a 54% response rate).

Key Findings
The typical recipient of the Journal is a 46-year-old, white female with a Bachelor’s degree who is also a registered dietitian.

Recipients are typically veterans in the field of dietetics/nutrition, with 15 years of experience.

In terms of practice area, the entire scope of the profession is represented in the Journal’s circulation. Fifteen categories were indicated by between 1% and 18% of respondents. At the top is clinical nutrition, general (18%).

20% of recipients do not currently work in the field of dietetics/nutrition. This segment is disproportionately populated with the oldest (65+) and youngest (under 25) in this population. However, about two-thirds of those not currently employed in nutrition/dietetics are in the prime working ages of 25 to 64 and, despite their lack of direct engagement with the profession, they continue to receive the Journal.

The average, annual household income for recipients in 2004 was $97,600. 35% earned more than $100,000 while only 19% earned less than $50,000.

In general, those currently working in dietetics/nutrition tend to work for larger organizations rather than smaller. Median number of employees in their organizations is 537. Median number of meals served is 392. However, most recipient organizations do not earn any food/nutrition related revenues.

About one in four recipients working in dietetics/nutrition are involved in managing an organization or department level budget. About half are involved in making purchases for their organizations.

The average recipient has read or looked through 2.2 of the last four issues of the Journal, spends 49 minutes reading or looking into a typical issue, saves issues for one year or longer and has referenced back issues 2.3 times in the past 12 months.

Higher readership engagement positively correlates with age and education level. The older and more highly educated the recipient, the more frequently they read the Journal and the more time they spend reading their issues.

Regarding practice area, those in education/research show the highest readership engagement.

The Journal is the most relied upon dietetics-related publication of any of the 22 presented on the survey. 71% indicated they rely on the Journal with the nearest competitor, Today’s Dietitian, fourteen percentage points behind at 57%. No other publication was indicated by more than 34%.

29% of recipients do not rely on the Journal for dietetics-related information. Statistically speaking, these individuals do not differ from those who do rely on the Journal in any job, career or personal characteristics analyzed.

The departments in the Journal receiving the highest degree of readership (at the frequency of at least sometimes) are listed below. CPE articles moved from third to first place this year, potentially because they are now free to members.

CPE Articles (79%)

FYI (72%)

Research (78%)

Review (69%)

Perspectives in Practice (76%)

ADA Reports (66%)

Research and Professional Briefs (74%)

At the higher standard of readership, at least most of the time, no department exceeds 37% readership among all recipients.

Just less than half of recipients indicated satisfaction with coverage of topics in each section of the Journal (Practice Applications, Research and Association News). Between 12% and 15% indicated low satisfaction ratings (one or two) on each, leaving a large group (approximately 40%) in a middle, ambivalent position (rating of three). A similar pattern of opinion is present for the Journal’s coverage of practice content.

Interest in seeing the following types of articles in the Journal is as follows:

news briefs (83%)

reviews (68%)

point-counterpoint (76%)

case reports (55%)

scientific summaries (74%)

product reviews (54%)

Interest in topic areas is:

clinical nutrition (74%)

research (52%)

community nutrition (60%)

consultation/business practice (49%)

education (57%)

food/nutrition management (39%)

60% indicated they agree that the Journal measures up to its mission (to be “the premiere source for the evidence-based practice and science of food, nutrition and dietetics”). Only 12% disagreed and the remaining 25% indicated no opinion either way (zero).

74% are interested in seeing future supplements published in the Journal. Similarly high levels of interest were expressed in supplements across all practice areas, age groups and education levels analyzed.

Historical Trend Analysis
On all demographic measurements, the results do not significantly vary across the 2003, 2004 and 2005 Reader Surveys. This indicates the circulation of the Journal has remained relatively stable over this period.

In terms of readership engagement over the past three years, no significant differences are noted in terms of time spent reading, issue pass-along to others, issue retention or reference to back issues. However, there is a slight erosion in frequency of readership. The percentage of those reading at least three out of the last four issues has dropped from 48% in 2003 to 41% in 2004.

The Journal has remained the top publication over the past three years in terms of reliance for dietetics related information. The only publication appearing to gain ground is Today’s Dietitian, which has risen from 46% to 57% since 2003.

   Print Version