Better performance metrics for the MJA

Kevat, Dev A S

doi:10.5694/mja13.10084

Topics

To the Editor: There is indeed a lot to “like” about the MJA in recent years,1 including a much-improved website, a defined space for the humanities, and the Journal’s courage in publishing articles that critique the performance of organisations and institutions.2-4

1 Nuffield Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
2 Department of Public Health, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC.

Correspondence: dev.kevat@monash.edu

Competing interests:

I have acted as a peer reviewer for Annals of Internal Medicine.

1. Medical Journal of Australia. How much do you “like” the MJA [editorial]? Med J Aust 2012; 197: 600-602. <MJA full text>
2. McGee RG, Webster AC, Rogerson TE, Craig JC. Medical device regulation in Australia: safe and effective? Med J Aust 2012; 196: 256-260. <MJA full text>
3. Grills NJ. The ethics of industry sponsorship of charities. Med J Aust 2012; 197: 139. <MJA full text>
4. Williams MJ, Kevat DAS, Loff B. Conflict of interest guidelines for clinical guidelines. Med J Aust 2011; 195: 442-445. <MJA full text>
5. Thomas Reuters. Journal citation reports, 2010. New York: Thomas Reuters, 2011.
6. CMAJ. Advantages of submitting your manuscript to CMAJ. http://www.cmaj.ca/site/authors/advantages.xhtml (accessed Jul 2013).
7. BMJ Journals. Why publish with BMJ Journals? http://journals.bmj.com/site/authors/author-benefits.xhtml (accessed Jan 2013).

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.