Nursing in Critical Care’s (NICC) Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for 2023 remained stable at 3.0 (Figure 1). The JIF rankings for the journal increased from 18th to 17th out of 191 journals. The journal’s CiteScore (Scopus) stands at 6.0, up from 5.6 the previous year and the Journal Citation Indicator (Clarivate) is 1.42, compared to 1.45 the previous year. In 2023, the 2-year Impact Factor increased compared to 2022 and now stands at 3.0. There was, however, a slight drop in the 2-year citation trend, following a steady increase throughout the previous years (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Impact Factor trend for Nursing in Critical Care since its first ranking for 2011

The retained impact factor and improved ranking suggest that papers published in the journal exhibit excellence, relevance and originality to the wider international critical care community. This is particularly significant, given that a number of other journals by the same publisher experienced a drop in JIF for 2023, possibly due to the reduced impact of papers related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The editors extend their gratitude to the associate editors, editorial advisory board (EAB) members, peer reviewers and editorial assistants for their exceptional commitment, support, dedication, energy and goodwill. The accomplishments of the journal are without doubt reflective of their constructive and critical feedback to authors and advice and support to the editorial team throughout the submission, reviewing and production process and in shaping the journal’s vision as a rigorous and relevant source of research and practice development and discussion for critical care practitioners, researchers, educators and managers worldwide.

Figure 2: 2-Year citation trend 2019-2024

We continued our efforts to sustain the journal’s commitment to a holistic representation of critical care across the lifespan, from preterm neonates to children to adults and older adults; to also cater for the patients’ and family members’ experiences during and after intensive care; and promoting environmentally sustainable critical care. This is only possible thanks to the commitment of several reviewers with expertise in these diverse areas and those from a psychosocial and rehabilitation background.

In 2024, we published a number of themed issues focussing on a range of topics. Towards the end of the year, we again published a supplementary issue with the abstracts accepted for this year’s British Association of Critical Care Nurses (BACCN) annual conference held in Aberdeen, Scotland.

After four years in the role, Lyvonne Tume stepped down from co-editor, but continued to serve as associate editor. Nina Stewart was appointed co-editor following a competitive call for applications. Nicki Credland joined the core editorial team as associate editor.

We are pleased to continue to expand and diversify our editorial advisory board, which is now made up of 43 members from 18 countries. The editorial team worked closely with several colleagues from Wiley and the BACCN; we are grateful for support and commitment to the journal.

In October 2024, our journal moved from Clarivate’s ScholarOne platform to Wiley’s newly developed Research Exchange Platform (REX), although the former will remain in use until a decision is made about all pending manuscripts on the former system. Towards the end of the year, two new social media associate editors were appointed following a competitive call for applications.

Between the 1st of January and the 31st of December, 2024, we received 846 submissions, which is practically the same as the number received the previous year, but an increase by almost 100 submissions from 2022 and almost double the number of papers submitted five years ago. This indicates an average 70 submissions per month, ranging from 49 in March to 95 in October. During 2024, 205 manuscripts were accepted for publication (up from 138 the previous year), and 368 were rejected (of which, 10 were offered a transfer to another journal). The overall acceptance rate was 35.6%. This represents a substantial increase from 27% in the previous year, which implies an improvement in the overall quality of the submissions, but still indicates that the peer reviewers and the editorial team remained vigilant to ensure that the increase in the number of submissions did not negatively impact the quality. Indeed, approximately one-third of the submitted papers were desk rejected at editorial level, indicating strict scrutiny by the editorial team before papers are submitted to reviewers. As in previous years, the principal reasons for rejection were: flawed research design or methodology; lack of clear relevance to the aim and scope of the journal; inadequate language quality and, occasionally, inability to find reviewers. Figure 3 displays the trend in the ratio between the total number of papers accepted and rejected by the Journal over the past five years.

Figure 3: Ratio of papers accepted and rejected by Nursing in Critical Care in the last five years and the first part of 2025.

The types of manuscripts accepted for publication during 2024 were of the following categories: 65% research articles, 16% reviews, 2.5% case reports, 10% editorials/guest editorials and 6% Other (including service evaluation/quality improvement, study protocols and various types of short manuscript). Compared to the previous year, this indicates an increase in submissions in the ‘research’ and ‘review’ categories, and a slight decrease in the number of editorials, with the other categories remaining stable. Figure 4 shows the trend in the manuscript categories accepted for publication by the journal in each of the last five years. In 2024, the largest number of submitting authors were based in China, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Iran, Spain and the United States. This confirms a trend noted in previous years, which is also similar to that observed in other journals. Table 1 shows the number of submissions from the top 15 countries in the last three years.

Figure 4: Types of manuscripts accepted in the last three years since 2019.

Table 1: Manuscript submission by country in 2022-2024 (only top 15 shown)

Excluding the papers that were desk rejected by the editorial team, in 2024 the median times from submission to first decision and to the final decision were 58 days and 111 days respectively, which indicate a slight increase compared to the previous year. There was, however, an improvement in the median time to acceptance (170 days, down from 182 days the previous year). The turnarounds mainly depend on the challenges encountered in finding reviewers, the number of rounds of peer review and the time taken to complete each review. We hope that these timelines improve as the new manuscript handling system is refined and as the editorial team members acclimate themselves to it. Figure 5 displays the five-year trend for the turnaround times for various production indicators.

Figure 5: Trend in production turnaround times trend (2019-2024)

In 2024, our publishers, Wiley, started a process of transitioning its journals to a new in-house manuscript handling system, called Research Exchange (REX). This was partly motivated by the increased possibility of tailoring the system to the requirements of its journals, given that the previously used system, ScholarOne, was an outsourced service. Our journal transitioned to REX on 17th October, 2024.

As expected, but perhaps to a greater extent, the change led to a number of challenges, mainly due to certain features that were part of the previous system no longer being available on the new system. On the positive side, the interface itself is much faster and easier on the eye. Of utmost concern was the fact that on the new system it was initially not possible to distinguish between reviewers who had already reviewed for the journal and those available across the Wiley database. This was rectified by the possibility of ‘filtering’ the search to those associated with the journal but the synchronisation is still not complete. Other issues are related to the selection of keywords, the unavailability of certain previous features (such as peer reviewer re-invitation, rescinding of reviews, attachment of documents when editors make a decision and others). Conversely, some of our initial concerns have been addressed or will be in the first half of the new year (e.g. the ability of editors editing the decision letter).

The editors in chief held several meetings with Wiley representatives (especially Jeaneen Smith, of whose support the editors are very grateful) and members of the product development team to discuss concerns and solutions related to the manuscript handling system. Thanks are due to Louise Stayt (BACCN) and Danielle Chilvers (Wiley) for facilitating communication between the editorial team, the society and the publisher. In the new year, Rares Iurea from the product development team is being invited to the first half of our core editorial team meetings to answer technical questions and listen to concerns, on the basis of which refinements in the system are being planned and implemented.

We would like to express our sincere thanks to Ian Jones and Fiona Timmins who stepped down from the editorial advisory board this year. We are pleased to welcome ten new members who were invited to join the editorial advisory board based on their expertise and consistent commitment and performance. Our editorial advisory board, is now made up of 43 members from 18 countries. The next annual virtual EAB meeting is planned for April, 2025.

At the point of changeover from the ScholarOne to the REX system in October, 2024, our list of reviewers included 947 individuals who had been invited to review at least once. With the new system, editors and associate editors may invite reviewers suggested by the system or reviewers who are already associated with the journal; therefore, the number of reviewers available to review for the journal is much more fluid.

This year saw an increase in the total number of manuscripts published online by the journal, from 135 in the previous year to 190 in 2024. Figures for 2024 also confirm the increasing popularity of open access publication with 42.6% of papers being published in hybrid open access, compared to 35.8% in 2023 and just 3% in 2019. Figure 6 summarises the number of manuscripts by year and publication type over the last five years.

Figure 6: Number of subscription-based, and hybrid open access manuscripts published in Nursing in Critical Care, 2019-2024.

In 2024, we published a number of themed issues focussing on Safety, Nutrition & Well Being (Vol. 29 Issue 2), Cardiac Critical Care & Early Mobilisation (Vol, 29 Issue 3), Psychological & Emotional Impact of Critical Care (Vol. 29 Issue 4) and Respiratory Care, Delirium, Well‐being & Moral Injury (Vol. 29 Issue 6).

Throughout most of this year we had an open call for a special issue on Sustainability in critical care, which is being guest edited by Heather Baid and Fredrika Sundberg. Several submissions were received. The issue lineup was finalised towards the end of the year, with a view of publishing this special issue as the first issue of 2025. We also received proposals for special issues on a number of topics, including technology and AI in critical care, neonatal and paediatric intensive care and family centred care.

As in previous years, some members of the editorial team attended the 2024 annual BACCN conference in Aberdeen and were available for informal individual meetings with prospective authors. The BACCN conference was featured in an editorial (Eltaybani et al., 2024) in the issue preceding it, which also included a guest editorial by the BACCN Chair and conference director (Naldrett and Gerber, 2024) .

The abstracts accepted at the BAACN conference were again published in a special supplementary issue (Volume 29, Issue S1). This supplementary issue also included a report (Gerber, 2024) and a reflective piece by the conference director and other participants (Gerber et al, 2024), as well as the visual summary for each day of the conference by keynote artist & visual strategist Julia Bakay.

After four years leading the journal with Josef Trapani, Lyvonne Tume stepped down from her role of co-editor, but continued to serve as associate editor. Nina Stewart, principal lecturer at the University of Brighton, was appointed co-editor following a competitive call for applications. Nicki Credland, immediate past chair of the BACCN, also joined the core editorial team as associate editor. The other associate editors throughout this year were Nikolaos Efstathiou, Sarah Vollam, Natalie McEvoy and Sameh Eltaybani, while Louise Stayt is the news editor and the journal’s liaison officer with the BACCN.

The editorial team worked closely with several colleagues from Wiley, especially James Pearce (Associate Publisher), Ella Mari Polintan and later Mark Catarungan (production editors) and Arthiya Velu (editorial assistant). We are grateful for their hard work and commitment to the journal. We thank Lara Wysong (Associate Managing Editor) for her work with the editorial team over the past three years and Jeaneen Smith, for supporting the journal until the appointment of a permanent peer review performance lead for the journal in the new year.

Regular online meetings were held between the editors, associate editors, the BACCN journal liaison officer and different members of the Wiley editorial, product development, peer reviewing and production teams to discuss policy and practice, share developments, and discuss governance. In the latter part of the year, the focus of some of the meetings was on the changes brought about by introduction of the new manuscript handling system, and ways to mitigate them.

The editors were invited to a meeting of the BACCN national board which discussed the journal and also held two meetings with Dr Sherestha Saini (Manager, Strategic Content Acquisition) who provided valuable advice and assistance for special issues and conducted a survey among the members of the editorial advisory board, and another meeting with Michelle Lau and Wati Ahmad in relation to the planned change to a continuous production model in the new year. Towards the end of the year, the editors had several meetings with Jeaneen Smith and members of the product development team to discuss concerns and solutions related to the manuscript handling system. We are most grateful to the BACCN national board for their trust and support, especially Ian Naldrett (BACCN Chair) and Patricia McCready (BACCN Treasurer) for joining our meetings with Wiley colleagues and being part of our interview panel respectively.

After three years in the role, Natalie McEvoy stepped down from the role of social associate editor, but stayed on as a regular associate editor. In the latter months of the year, this social media coordination role was shared with two other associate editors, Sameh Eltaybani and Nicki Credland. The editors are extremely grateful for Natalie’s work and dedication in setting up and diversifying this role and other members of the editorial team who stepped in when required.

Following a competitive call for applications, Dr Cassandra Sturgeon Delia and Dr Gideon Johnson were appointed as the new social media associate editors, and members of the core editorial team, with effect from 1st January 2025. The decision to appoint two persons to fulfil this role is based on the very high quality of applications received and especially on the need to continue increasing and diversifying the journal’s presence in various social media platforms.

Each year, all members of the editorial advisory board and panel of reviewers are thanked each for their valuable contributions and reminded about their role in the journal. After each review, the reviewer can gain recognition for their contribution through Web of Science and are offered a discount on selected Wiley products. The journal received 845 manuscript submissions in 2024 – a monthly average of 70 submissions. This means that we require around 140 reviews every month. We are extremely indebted to the hard work and time spent by our committed reviewers, some of whom have contributed exceptionally, and to the editorial advisory board members and members of the core editorial team who also review extensively. EAB members are required to review at least six papers a year. The reviewers who completed most peer reviews (excluding the members of the core editorial team) between January and November 2024 are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. The top reviewers for 2024 (excluding core editorial team members), based on the number of reviews completed between January and November, 2024

During 2024, approximately 3,650 requests to conduct a review were sent (an increase of about 1,400 invitations from 2023). Just over 2,000 of these invitations to review were declined, almost double the number of declines the previous year. This means that the rate of declined invitations to review slightly increased from 54% last year to 56% this year. Figure 7 summarises the trend in review invitations, decline and completion over the last five years, and indicates that the number of invitations to review trebled since 2022.

During 2024, the largest portion of reviews were conducted by reviewers based in the United Kingdom, Malta, Japan, Turkey, Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, the United States and Switzerland.

Figure 7: Trend in peer review invitations, acceptance, decline and completion (2021-2024)

In addition to delayed responses, the significant decline rate means that a disproportionate amount of reviewing is undertaken by relatively few reviewers. Furthermore, reviewers who have previously reviewed a paper occasionally decline to review a revised submission, which severely complicates the subsequent rounds of peer review. To reduce the likelihood of this, we are following up on our request with the product development team to reintroduce the possibility of editing the title of invitation emails to indicate whether the requested review is for a revised manuscript.

Delayed reviewer response, failure to reply to invitations to review and late reviews returned have an effect on journal metrics. On occasions, there are more than 10 declines per paper. This has resulted in the editorial team undertaking a significant quota of the reviewing burden to ensure manuscripts are turned around in as timely a fashion. Reviews undertaken by the editorial team during 2024 are as follows: NS = 227, JT=70, SE=69, NC=37, SV=25, NE=13, LT = 11, ASR=10, NM=7.

It is worth noting that, on the newly introduced manuscript handling system, it is no longer possible for editors and associate editors to assign manuscripts to themselves as reviewers. The system does allow them to comment on the submission which effectively enables peer reviews, but unfortunately these are not accounted for in the statistics for the total number of papers reviewed by core editorial team members. Additionally, editors and associate editors now have the option of assigning reviewers based on suggestions by the system. This has a number of advantages (e.g. exposure to a much larger range of potential reviewers from different fields and settings; reduced likelihood of being unable to secure reviewers for a specific submission; quicker to search for and invite reviewers) and disadvantages (limited familiarity with the reviewers and their track records; occasionally unhelpful suggestions, based on the generated keywords). We are closely monitoring the situation with the publishers and development team.

We extend our appeal to all our EAB members to continue identifying potential reviewers in their network and encouraging them to express their interest to review, by contacting a member of the core editorial team by email.

In December 2024, the journal welcomed two new social media (SoMe) Associate Editors, Dr Cassandra Sturgeon Delia and Dr Gideon Johnson, who have been instrumental in driving the social media strategy. They actively promote each journal issue, highlight individual papers, call for reviewers and submissions, advertise positions, and share key journal updates. As part of these efforts, the journal successfully launched two new social media accounts on BlueSky and LinkedIn, further expanding its reach and engagement with the academic and clinical communities.

The Nursing in Critical Care (NiCC) X (formerly Twitter) account (@NiCCJournal) has been a key platform for engaging with the critical care community since its launch in January 2020. Over the years, the NiCC X page has experienced substantial growth, with increasing follower numbers and high engagement levels reflected in post impressions, engagement rates, and link clicks. As of March 2025, the account has surpassed 3,000 followers worldwide, with more than 70K post impressions, averaging 800 impressions per day and a total of 1.7K posts. Post impressions refer to the total number of times users have seen a post. This includes views from their timelines, search results, profiles, and embedded posts on external sites. Impressions indicate how often content appears on users' screens, with high impressions suggesting that posts reach a wide audience, either organically or through engagement-driven visibility, such as reposts and shares

Recognising the power of social media in research dissemination, the Nursing in Critical Care editorial team continues to leverage multiple platforms to expand reach. In addition to X, the journal actively engages audiences on Facebook, LinkedIn, Bluesky and Instagram (@niccjournal), driving significant traffic to the journal’s website and increasing visibility within the global critical care community.

The Journal’s Facebook page experienced substantial growth from 2024 to the first quarter (Q1) of 2025. In 2024, the page recorded 7.9K total views, 3.6K reach (the total number of unique users who have seen content at least once), and 383 content interactions through views, shares, likes, comments and clicks on links to journal articles, all achieved through organic engagement. A sharp increase in activity was observed from late August (Figure 8). In Q1 2025 (January 1 – March 12), performance improved significantly, with 30.3K total views, a 138.3% increase in audience engagement reach (8.5K total), and 895 content interactions, reflecting a 133.7% increase (Figure 9). Multiple engagement spikes were recorded in January and February, suggesting that specific content types resonated well. The page has demonstrated strong organic growth, emphasising the importance of consistent engagement and high-value content.

Figure 8: Facebook Analytics 2024

Figure 9: Facebook Analytics 2025 Quarter 1

Instagram activity in 2024 was minimal, with only two posts published. These posts reached 126 and 115 Instagram users with 137 and 128 impressions, respectively, suggesting that some users saw the post more than once. The limited posting suggests an opportunity for expansion. We have increased content frequency and engagement strategies, such as interactive images and extension to the Thread platform, which could improve visibility and follower growth.

Since its launch in February 2025, the NICC LinkedIn page has seen steady growth. In just over a month, the page accumulated 4,310 organic impressions with noticeable fluctuations in engagement (Figure 10). Follower growth stands at 167 total followers, with 47 new followers in the last 30 days, despite a 60.2% decline compared to the previous period (Figure 11). The engagement rate is 8.5%, slightly below competitors by 25%, while the page published 13 posts, showing an 8.3% increase compared to competitors. Visitor metrics indicate that 47 desktop users and 8 mobile users have engaged with the page (Figure 12). Competitor analysis from journals with much longer-established LinkedIn pages shows that Intensive and Critical Care Nursing has seen the highest follower growth (+37.1%), while the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd (ACCCN) and the International Journal of Nursing Studies experienced a decline.

Since its launch in January 2025, the NICC Bluesky account (@niccjournal.bsky.social) has experienced strong initial growth. To enhance engagement further, we aim to foster more interactions, expand our audience, and explore collaborative opportunities within the Bluesky network. In just over two months, the account has accumulated 306 followers and published 63 posts, significantly outpacing competitors. A comparative analysis highlights that Australian Critical Care has only 49 followers and 1 post, having launched less than a month ago. Similarly, Intensive Care Medicine Experimental (ICMx), active for one month, has gained 211 followers and posted 37 times. Meanwhile, the Intensive and Critical Care Nursing Journal has been active for less than a month, accumulating just 39 followers with 2 posts. These figures demonstrate that NICC’s early engagement strategy on Bluesky has positioned the journal ahead of competitors in terms of both follower growth and content activity, establishing a solid foundation for future outreach and audience engagement.

We are actively sustaining our Facebook page's strong organic growth by analysing high-performing posts and leveraging interactive content to maintain audience engagement. By identifying the types of posts that resonate most with our followers, we aim to refine our content strategy and further enhance reach and interactions. We recognise the opportunity to build engagement on Instagram, as activity has been minimal. We are implementing a more consistent posting schedule and incorporating strategic use of stories and reels to address this. This approach will help increase visibility and foster a stronger connection with our audience. For LinkedIn and Bluesky, our early performance has shown strong impressions and steady follower growth. To build on this momentum, we are enhancing our engagement strategies to match or exceed competitor benchmarks. This includes increasing content frequency, optimising post formats, and encouraging meaningful interactions to establish NICC as a leading voice in critical care discussions.

In conclusion, NICC’s social media presence has expanded significantly across platforms. Facebook engagement continues to grow, LinkedIn and Bluesky have had a promising launch, and Instagram remains an area for potential expansion. A strategic focus on content frequency, interaction, and audience engagement will drive further success in 2025.

Figure 10: LinkedIn Analytics Impressions

Figure 11: LinkedIn Followers

Figure 12: LinkedIn Visitors

Compiled by Josef Trapani & Nina Stewart

Social Media Report compiled by Cassandra Sturgeon Delia & Gideon Johnson

We are grateful to our colleagues from Wiley, especially Arthiya Velu and the Journal Insights Team, for providing the statistics and graphics included in this report. While this report was manually written by the four persons mentioned above, the visual layout was enhanced through Gamma.AI.

Eltaybani S, Credland N, Stewart N & Trapani J. Spotlight on BACCN Conference 2024: Celebrating the diversity in critical care education, research and clinical practice. Nursing in Critical Care. 2024; 29(5): 845-846. DOI: 10.1111/nicc.13147

Gerber K. BACCN Conference 2024 round-up. Nursing in Critical Care. 2024; 29(S1): 4-7. DOI: 10.1111/nicc.13237

Gerber K, Awotedu L, Cutler S, Blackwood K, Mann J, Varley-Hearn M. “Taking care: A love letter to nursing”. Nursing in Critical Care. 2024; 29(S1): 27-31. DOI: 10.1111/nicc.13237