A review of 2004, and with the new year comes a new look

doi:10.1186/cc3051

Critical Care
Volume 9
Issue 1

Viewing options:

Abstract
Full text
PDF (31KB)

Associated material:

Related literature:

Articles citing this article
on Google Scholar
on ISI Web of Science
on PubMed Central
Other articles by authors
on Google Scholar

Lapworth K
Rahman E
Hubbard C

on PubMed

Lapworth K
Rahman E
Hubbard C
Related articles/pages
on Google

on Google Scholar

on PubMed

Tools:

Post to:

Editorial

A review of 2004, and with the new year comes a new look

Kerrie Lapworth¹ , Emdadur Rahman² and Charlotte Hubbard²

¹In-house Editor, Critical Care, Editorial office, BioMed Central Ltd, London, UK

²Assistant editor, Critical Care, Editorial office, BioMed Central Ltd, London, UK

author email corresponding author email

Critical Care 2005, 9:1-2doi:10.1186/cc3051


Published:	14 January 2005

First paragraph (this article has no abstract)

2004 was a great year for Critical Care. Our impact factor increased to 1.9, making us the sixth highest ranking intensive/critical care journal. The ranking that is compiled by Thompson ISI [1] showed that Critical Care had the second largest growth in the field. A research article by Rinaldo Bellomo and colleagues [2] published in May 2004 broke all of our previous 'most accessed' records, charting over 14,000 accesses (this unprecedented visibility was made possible by the article being Open Access [3,4]). Furthermore, our research submissions have increased by 57%. We also celebrated our 3000th published article (the 13th in the Statistics Review series, covering receiver operating characteristic curves [5]); our initial decision time for manuscripts is now 32 days, which we have reduced from 43 days in 2003; and the number of people registered on the website broke the 21,000 mark.