Quality in Primary Care Open Access

  • ISSN: 1479-1064
  • Journal h-index: 27
  • Journal CiteScore: 6.64
  • Journal Impact Factor: 4.22
  • Average acceptance to publication time (5-7 days)
  • Average article processing time (30-45 days) Less than 5 volumes 30 days
    8 - 9 volumes 40 days
    10 and more volumes 45 days
Reach us +32 25889658

Editorial - (2013) Volume 21, Issue 6

Quality in Primary Care 2013

A Niroshan Siriwardena MBBS MMedSci PhD FRCGP*
Corresponding Author:
Professor A Niroshan Siriwardena
Community and Health Research Unit
School of Health and Social Care
University of Lincoln, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK
E-mail: nsiriwardena@lincoln.ac.uk
Visit for more related articles at Quality in Primary Care

As we come to the end of another year for Quality in Primary Care it is time to reflect on our successes and achievements over the past 12 months. There have been a number of highlights from the Journal including articles covering a range of subjects, disease areas, professional groups and topical issues.

Research papers have addressed a wide range of issues including measurement of quality, costs and equity for international comparisons of primary care as part of the multinational European Union (EU)- funded Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study.[1] Editorials include those from Steve Gillam covering the Francis Inquiry following widely publicised failures in hospital care at Mid- Staffordshire in England,[2] solutions for better patient safety from Paresh Dawda in his discussion of the Berwick report[3] and horizon scanning fromTimWilson in his examination of how primary care should develop to meet future health needs.[4]

Patient Perspectives and debate papers have covered the current controversy on routine mammographic breast screening.[57] International Exchange has covered position papers on continuity of care8 and the effect of digital technology.[9] Finally, I am grateful to Steve Gillam for leading on a series of articles on Quality Improvement Science,[1013] which will be published as a book next year, providing a quality improvement primer for those working in primary care as well as other areas of healthcare.[14]

Quality in Primary Care continues to have an international appeal, receiving and publishing more articles from outside the United Kingdom (UK). Last year we received 59 submissions to the Journal. These were from theUK(24 submissions), United States and Canada (10), Australia and New Zealand (6), Mainland Europe (16), South America (1), the Middle East and Asia (2). In 2012, almost 15% of articles were from more than one country and this trend has continued in 2013.

Most articles published in 2013 were research papers (33); other formats included editorials or guest editorials (9), articles on quality improvement or clinical governance in action (3), debate (2) or discussion papers (1), Patient Perspective (1), International Exchange (5) and Quality Improvement Science (5) articles. For articles submitted in 2012, the average time (for articles published or rejected) was 132 days from submission to publication, 2 days to Acknowledgements, 68 days to an initial decision and 92 days from submission to final decision. We initially reject around 50% of unsolicited papers, although some of these are published following extensive revision and resubmission. Overall, excluding commissioned articles and editorials, 85% of papers were accepted or accepted subject to revision.

The Journal has maintained its rate of citations with 128 in 2012 for all articles. From 2009 to 2011 over 40% of articles were cited at least once. The unofficial impact factor for Quality in Primary Care (number of citations per article per year over the previous two years calculated using www.scimagojr.com) was 0.86 for 2012.

I would like to thank all the members of the Editorial Board for their valuable contribution to the Journal. It is with sadness that we say goodbye to two of our Editorial Board members, Richard Baker and MaxineOffredy.Richard Bakerwas the Founding Editor of the Journal and has been a staunch supporter during my tenure as Editor. I wish both well for the future. Peer Reviewers are carefully selected for expertise in their field, and I am grateful to them for their important contribution to the success of the Journal. A full list of Peer Reviewers is included below. I would like to thank Sue Bowler, the Editorial Assistant for the Journal, Viet-Hai Phung who has provided editorial support and the staff at Radcliffe for their work on the Journal over the past year.

I look forward to your ongoing support, whether as a reader, contributor or reviewer. I would like to take this opportunity to wish you, our readers and contributors, all good wishes of the season and success for the next year and beyond.


Abd Tahrani

Akke Vellinga

Albert Alonso

Andrew McClure

Anilkrishna Thota

Anthony Plamer

Brian Cryder

Chiara Bonetto

Chris Salisbury

Daniel Witt

David Fitzmaurice

David Haggstrom

Donald Barr

Elizabeth Evans

Elizabeth Thompson

Gareth Morgan

Gary Abel

Graham Lappin

Henk van Weert

Jill Manthorpe

Jo Middlemass

Jon Duke

Jon Wardle

Jonathan Cylus

Karen Windle

Kelly Kelleher

Laurie Twells

Luciano Drager

Lyne Lalonde

M. Carol Antonelli

Malcolm Lewis

Mamas Theodorou

Marcus Streit

Margie Snyder

Mark Ashworth

Martin Roland

Masami Akai

Massimiliano Panella

Matthias Briel

Maurice O’Kane

Michela Tinelli

Moyez Jiwa

Nicki Walsh

Nigel Sparrow

Nuria Farre

Olga Koslowska

Onyebuchi Okosieme

Patricia Wilkie

Pattie Groome

Paul Marschall

Paul McCullagh

Paul Milne

Pedro Genta

Pip Logan

Randie Little

Rod Sheaff

Roderick Orner

Ruth Sepper

Ruth Webster

Sarah Redsell

Shelley Doucet

Sonja van Dillen

Tim Stokes

Trevor Simpson

Val Wilson

Viet-Hai Phung

Walter Vandereycken

Zahid Asghar

Peer Review

Commissioned; not externally Peer Reviewed.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.