| KRATKA VSEBINA | Background. Bibliometrics and its methods are a useful set of tools for analysing a scientific journal's relative position in the field. By measuring different quantitative data and comparing them with other journals in the field, certain decisions can be made as to the future of the journal. Objectives and methods. We thought asappropriate to take last ten years of Radiology and Oncology (1992-2001) and put that content to double scrutiny: first, by applying various guantitative measurements to the journal's content to get a more objective picture of the whole and of its development in the past ten years; then by additionally comparing it to another international journal from the field and of similar orientation, Neoplasma, to illustrate ifdifferences and/or similarities between the two are in favour of or detriment to Radiology andOncology. Results and conclusion. Results show thatRadiology and Oncology has been progressing in the right direction, but that extra efforts should be made by the editors and the editorial board to attract more articles perissue and to gradually increase the share of experimental articles to boostits impact in the field. Also, to improve its visibility, editors, reviewers and also authors that publish in Radiology and Oncology could consider citing the articles published in this journal, in the articles published elsewhere, when appropriate. // Izhodišče. Bibliometrija s svojimi metodami predstavlja zelo koristen nabor orodij za analiziranje relativne pomembnosti strokovne revije znotraj njene stroke. S pomočjo kvantitativnih meritev vsebine in primerjavami s podobnimi revijami v stroki si tudi uredniki lahko pomagajo pri odločitvah glede nadaljnih usmeritev uredniške politike. Cilji in metode. Vzeli smo zadnjih deset letnikov (1992-2001) revije Radiology and Oncology in njeno celotno vsebinospustili skozi dvojno merjenje: s prvim merjenjem smo zasledovali cilj, da se s pomočjo raznih kvantitativnih bibliometričnih metod pridobi boljobjektivna slika o celotni reviji in njenem razvoju v zadnjih desetih letih; nato pa smo s pomočjo primerjave s sorodno mednarodno revijo, Neoplasma, ugotovljali, če so razlike in/ali podobnosti med obema, obravnavanireviji v korist ali škodo. Rezultati in zaključek. Rezultati kažejo, da se je revija dobro razvila, toda potrebni bodo dodatni napori ožjega uredništva in aktivna pomoč uredniškega odbora, da privabijo več kvalitetnih dankov in s tem povečajo njihovo število na zvezek, ter da postopoma povečujejo delež eksperimentalnih člankov, kar, kot kažejo izkušnje,lahko zviša relativni vpliv revije v stroki. Revija bi si lahko tudi povečala ugled tako, da bi vsi avtorji, ki v njej objavljajo, svoje objave v Radiology and Onocology smiselno vključevali med citate v članke, ki jih objavljajo drugje. |