#include ./header_include.iphtml

Anesthesia & Analgesia Update

Because the SPA has a special affiliated agreement with Anesthesia & Analgesia, I thought that an update report is warranted. I am privileged to serve as Section Editor for Pediatric Anesthesia. I am now in my fifth year as Section Editor, having been nominate by the SPA Board in 1996.

I want to thank those members of the SPA who serve as Reviewers. Your contributions have been enormous. I would say that the majority of opinion on what is published in Anesthesia & Analgesia comes from SPA reviewers. Despite your increasing clinical demands, your comprehensive and timely reviews have been invaluable. Without this peer-reviewed process we would be unable to adequately assess and publish medical information in pediatric anesthesia to advance our care of children. So thank you very much. Your reviews matter and determine my decision.

Let me explain the editorial process. Manuscripts are first received by the Editorial Office in San Francisco and then routed to me. I read the manuscript and then send it to 3 or 4 reviewers for their opinion. I select the reviewers based on their area of expertise in Pediatric Anesthesia and their ability to do timely reviews. After I have received the reviewer’s comments, I review these comments and re-read the manuscript. I then categorize the manuscripts into three categories: 1) accept with minor revision (needs minor changes and word-smithing), 2) major revision necessary (decision pending based on authors response to reviewers' comments for important issues such as power analysis, questions regarding study design, etc.), or 3) rejection (usually because the manuscript is not remedial due to faulty study design). I am very grateful for those who review these manuscripts. Those SPA members who have not reviewed manuscripts and wish to do so, should send me their correspondence information at my email address below.

Since 1996, manuscript submissions are up 33%. Last year the Pediatric Anesthesia section reviewed 126 manuscripts. Sixty were accepted and 66 were rejected; a 47% acceptance rate. Approximately, 66% of the submissions were from outside the United States. The latter fact suggests that current clinical demands in the U.S. have been at the expense of clinical and basic science research.

Importantly, over the past 5 years the greatest increase in Pediatric Anesthesia manuscripts has been by Anesthesia & Analgesia. Compared to Anesthesiology, British Journal of Anaethesia, Pediatric Anaethesia, Canadian J. of Anesthesia,

European J. of Anesthesia, etc., Anesthesia & Analgesia has outperformed these other journals in terms of acceptance by a factor of at least 2 to 1. Clearly, the SPA affiliation is working.

I look forward to continuing to serve as your Section Editor. I would be happy to respond to any of your inquiries. Thank you for making the SPA / A & A affiliation a great success.

William J. Greeley, MD, MBA
Section Editor, Pediatric Anesthesia
Anesthesia and Analgesia
J.J. Downes Endowed Professor and Chair
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, PA
#include ./footer_include.iphtml