In the November WarmUp (editorial, for those not familiar with BJSM jargon!) I promised to explain why BJSM has to reject many good papers. The simple answer is that 1000 doesn’t got into 180. Without giving away crucial trade secrets to our friendly competitors, I can share with you that BJSM receives close to 1000 submissions per year. And as those of you inclined toward accounting and other obsessive-compulsive pursuits will have noticed, we have 80 pages per issue. And some of those pages are already accounted for. So you can see we can publish only about 15 average length articles.

To help authors get rapid decisions, 40-60% of submissions are evaluated by a couple of editors and returned rather rapidly to authors. The research area might not be in BJSM’s scope — it does not mean that the research isn’t good. But given that only 15-20% of submissions can be accepted, BJSM needs to focus on the 500 or so papers that will provide the final 180. Clearly peer-review is not an exact science. There is no algorithm for ‘rapid rejection’. I don’t claim it is ‘objective’ in the way that the Olympic 100m final result is adjudicated. But as authors, all the editorial team appreciates the hard work that goes into papers; we have all had many papers rejected and we all have had differences of opinions with editors. An imperfect system but a better one has not yet caught on.

Focusing on the positive, how can you maximise your chances of review and publication?
A few quick tips on how to get papers accepted by BJSM:

1. Choose an interesting area of research.
2. Highlight the innovation in your research in a 3-paragraph introduction if you can. Most great papers need only 3 paragraphs to explain why the project was done.
3. A catchy (but honest) title is better than a boring title.
4. Emphasise the clinical relevance in your discussion - why will this research make a difference to clinical practice, policy, or to coaches?

We like randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses. But that’s not all. See recent issues for interesting cohort studies. Cross-sectional studies and retrospective surveys, broadly speaking, obtain a lower priority than their counterparts that provide higher on the levels of evidence. Not rocket science.

As a BJSM and blog reader I thank you for considering BJSM and for giving us a chance. We know from the e-data that are now readily available that BJSM is widely downloaded and clicked-upon. We encourage you to give us a try as both an author and a reader. And as I have said consistently, feedback and debate is welcomed. BJSM aims to be the leading resource for new knowledge and debate in the broadly defined field of clinical sports medicine. Our target audience is physicians and physiotherapists who work in musculoskeletal medicine and exercise, as well as physiologists, scientists and public health authorities who believe that physical activity is the most powerful single health modality that a person can readily adopt.

Enjoy this issue.

As mentioned in the Warm Up in the November issue, BJSM receives nearly 1000 submissions a year. Given that we only have budget to print about 15 papers a month, it means that only about 10% of ‘original submissions’ can be accepted. It doesn’t seem fair to authors or reviewers to send all these papers to peer review - most authors prefer a fast rejection over a slow one. Thus, our policy is to reject 40% of papers at the editorial board level. This means that about 600 papers go for review per year and of those about 1/3 will be published.

This means a paper might report fine research but be passed over for BJSM. Priority areas for BJSM are papers that are of interest to clinicians including family doctors, sports physicians, physiotherapists and public health and policy staff. We love papers that will change what clinicians and sports scientists do. Randomized trials, systematic reviews and large, longitudinal cohort studies are, of course, very much in demand. Basic science needs to have a clear, short-run, clinical implication to be accepted.

As active researchers and clinicians, the editorial team appreciates the hard work that goes into every research study. However, we also have a responsibility to shape BJSM for its readership - and we do not apologise for that.

I am very excited and most grateful that 6 international leaders in sports and exercise medicine have agreed to serve as Senior Associate Editors in Chief – Babette Pluim (Netherlands), Jill Cook (Australia), Liza Arendt (US), Steven Stovitz (US), Roald Bahr (Norway) and Timothy Noakes (South Africa).

This senior leadership group and I will take the first 5 months of the year to catch up with the hardworking Editorial Board and engage all those who wish to contribute to the Journal.The new Associate Editors and the expanded Editorial Board will be listed in the June issue of BJSM.

To contribute to the direction of BJSM, I encourage you to provide input either in person (e.g., The RendezVous Conference in Las Vegas (March 25-29), my visit to various UK centres in early May) or on email (karim.khan@ubc.ca).

The BJSM vision that aims to reflect the diverse interests of the world of sport and exercise medicine will be on the web by June 1^st.

We aim to make the BJSM the premier clinically-relevant original data journal and online community. BJSM is one of the ‘specialist journals’ of the BMJ publishing group. The mother ship – the BMJ – aims to ‘help doctors make better decisions’.

BMJ editors ask 3 questions about manuscripts that are submitted:

1. Is it new?
2. Is it true?
3. Will it change what doctors do?

Given the expertise, resources, and brand recognition of the BMJ, it seems that team BJSM might do well to follow that game plan in the first instance. Thus, we will focus on clnically-relevant health and human performance.We’ll aim to accept and solicit material that is new, true, and has the potential to change the things you do.

We hope this Blog helps us engage a global community to find answers.

Exciting times!