Thorax

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

Thorax 2006;61:1020-1021; doi:10.1136/thx.2006.072819
Copyright © 2006 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & British Thoracic Society

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Knox, A
Right arrow Articles by Britton, J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Knox, A
Right arrow Articles by Britton, J

EDITORIAL

60th anniversary of Thorax

Thorax 1996–2002

A Knox, J Britton

Division of Respiratory Medicine, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham University Hospital, City Hospital Campus, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Professor J Britton
Division of Respiratory Medicine, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham University Hospital, City Hospital Campus, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK; j.britton@virgin.net

Keywords: Thorax

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The year 1996 was a strange one. Dolly the sheep was cloned and Britain was embroiled in an epidemic of mad cow disease. Nottingham Forest football team were in the premier league. Amid this confusion, two different beasts were appointed to the editorship of Thorax, one a cell biologist and the other an epidemiologist. This was the first time Thorax had joint editors rather than a dictatorial structure. Would it work? How would we run the journal?

The main indicator of scientific quality of a journal then, as now, was the impact factor and, for all its failings, it at least provided something objective which was measurable against comparator journals. At that time the impact factor of Thorax was rather low and we were concerned that, as competitor journals expanded, we might be left in their wake. We decided that lean and mean was best. . . . [Full text of this article]







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2006 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & British Thoracic Society