An opinion survey among readers of Revista Medica de Chile

Background: A few objective indicators support the relevance of articles published in medical journals, such as the ISI Impact Factor and Citation indices. However, a feedback from the readers can help to improve a journal. Aim: To report the results of an opinion survery addressed to readers of Revista Medica de Chile, in /June-August 2007. Material and methods: A survery was devised and distributed electromically or by mail among all subscribers. It requested information about gender, age, site of work, proportion of time dedicated to clinical practice, teaching or research, plus their opinion about the contents and format of the journal, inviting them to propose improvements. Results: The survey was distributed to 1274 subscribers (98.7% physicians, most living in Chile) and was responded by 309 (24%). Those who responded were practicing medcine for a mean of 24 +/- 13 (SD) years and did not differ in gender, age of years of medical practice from those that did not respond. Sixty three percent practised as internists and dedicated 63 +/- 26 (SD) % of their time to clinical practice, 21 +/- 16% to teaching activities and 16 +/- 17% to reasearch. More than half of respondents qualified the sections of the journal as good or excellent. Fifty one per cent requested to include more clinical topics updates, 35% more articles on evidence based medicine and 34% more article focused on continuing medical education. The more frequent free suggestions referred to changes in the format of the journal. Conclusions: Most readers are satisfied with the journal's contents. Suggested changes were referred to review articles and the journal's format (Rev Med Chile 2008; 136: 1163-8).