What do our readers think of ANZJOG?

Many of you will have read the article in the last issue of the O&G Magazine by Professor Caroline de Costa who is the Chair of the ANZJOG Board of Management. This article followed the survey which was recently conducted by the Board to find out what our readers really think of ANZJOG. Despite the relatively poor response rate of only 12% in total, or 16% of Fellows and Trainees, there are some important messages for the Board and I to take careful note of. The first is that there does not appear to be any strong voice requesting significant change. By this I mean that the majority seem to be happy that we are an international journal but with a focus on this region. There is a call for more commissioned reviews, as well as articles of interest to Diplomates. The first is quite easy, even though there is often a big lead time from asking for a review article and getting it! The second is a bigger problem as there is very little work submitted by Diplomates and not very much which is that relevant to the context in which they usually practise. What may be achievable is to try to commission review articles which cover topics relevant to rural and remote obstetrics. Then again, the comments received as part of the survey indicated some dissatisfaction about the fact that there was an ‘obstetric bias’ in the journal. I can assure everyone that there is no ‘selection bias’ and any disproportionate representation of either branch of our speciality simply reflects what is submitted. In the future I will try to make sure that the balance of articles in obstetrics and gynaecology is reasonably consistent in each issue. I suppose I should not be surprised that this kind of survey would throw up some conflicting views. However, I was pleased to learn that only one of the respondents wants me replaced, and quite a number said very positive things about what I have been trying to achieve over the last three years. I did get some negative comments about last year's article on homebirth, but I would point out that any article is published only after extensive peer review and revision, and the correct thing to do if you disagree with an article's message is to write in and tell us why. Having apologised for the relative lack of gynaecology overall, this issue is absolutely packed with interesting things about this branch of obstetrics and gynaecology. There are three gynaecology-based articles up front, one a submitted review and the other two ‘opinion pieces’, which I hope will stir up some debate. Peter Dietz has contributed an opinion piece on the use of mesh which is bound to receive some strong responses from those who passionately believe in its value. George Condous has written a lengthy piece on the modern management of ectopic pregnancy. Finally, the use of botulinum toxin in the pelvis is a fascinating review of this expanding application. In addition to these three, there are two original papers on endometriosis and the bowel, the first exploring the relationship between symptoms and pathology, and the second reviewing a very large case series of bowel resection for endometriosis. I think both of these articles contain some very important messages for all who work in this area. I am very pleased that I have got some Letters to the Editor in response to my editorial on the future of gynaecological surgery. I will not prolong the debate but I would like to respond to John Svigos by saying that he and I are ‘on the same page’, and I very much hope that we don't see the demise of the general gynaecological surgeon. However, I would like to think that in the future, women do get the right operation (based on evidence), done by an adequately trained and skilled surgeon, rather than the one that their specialist thinks they should do because it is one that they are capable of performing. And finally for some breaking news. As we go to press with this edition I am very pleased to announce that the release of the 2008 Impact Factors (IF) has shown that ANZJOG has had a significant rise from 0.833 to 1.139. This figure reflects the citations of articles published in both 2006 and 2007 so both myself and the previous Editor, and our respective Editorial Boards, can take some credit for this result. This is marvellous news and the first time that the journal has had an IF of above 1. I now look forward with eager anticipation to next year's result!