Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (JORT), with the plain intention of providing the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (SIOT) with a powerful communication tool, through which Italian authors could spread the results of their research activity beyond the borders of Italian language, and contemporarily the contributions of foreign scientists could be published in an Italian-based journal with a clear propensity for a worldwide circulation.In 2000 Francesco Pinino founded the At the beginning the former effect was more evident, mostly because the journal still needed to be acknowledged by the international community, but in recent years the latter became largely prevalent and made JORT a globally recognized scientific journal dealing with all aspects of musculoskeletal medicine and surgery. The submissions analysis confirms this development: in 2010, 191 manuscripts were submitted, 68.6 % of which had foreign authorship, while in 2013, 223 manuscripts were received, and 81.6 % of them had a foreign corresponding author. This positive trend seems to be confirmed in 2014, with further rise of submissions and a remarkable increase of contributions originating from countries with top quality scientific production.Pubmed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Scimago, EBSCO, and Google Scholar are only a few of the abstracting and indexing institutes, databases, and search engines in which JORT is listed. In 2008 the inclusion in Pubmed strongly improved the visibility of our journal and represented a milestone in JORT’s history. The subsequent year it was indexed in MEDLINE by the National Library of Medicine (NLM), thus receiving an important external validation both of the scientific quality and of the editorial production.The number of citations that an article receives, with all its derived statistics, is likely the most effective estimate of the impact the article is having on the scientific community. For these reasons, the same statistics have been extrapolated to describe firstly authors’ performance and subsequently journals’ performance.x − 1 and x − 2 receive in year x, doubled in 3 years, jumping from 0.82 in 2010 to 1.68 in 2013 [Scimago is a source of important information about journals’ citations, providing statistical analyses based on the Scopus database. Unfortunately, 2014 results are still unavailable at the present time, but 2013 data confirm that JORT ranks for the third consecutive year in the first quartile both in medicine and in surgery, and in the second quartile in orthopedics and sports medicine. The H-index is as high as 15, meaning that 15 published manuscripts received at least 15 citations. The “cites per document (2 years)”, i.e., the average number of citations that articles published in years In Google Scholar, JORT displayed a similar remarkable progress, with an H5-index as high as 19, meaning that 19 articles published from 2009 to 2013 received at least 19 citations [Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology is not yet indexed in the Journal Citation Reports® (JCR), thus we cannot provide an impact factor (IF). Although most “non-impacted” journals offer their authors and readers unofficial or virtual IF, such calculations are somehow speculative, and often their publication on the journal webpage represents a bold move. This is because the difference between the virtual and official IF, calculated by ISI Web of Science in cases of inclusion, may be relevant, due to different evaluations of the citable items, to computation of multiple citations from the same article, etc. Under these premises and with all due caution, our editorial office attempted to calculate the citable items published in 2011 and 2012 and their citations collected from publications listed in JCR and from the same journal (self-citations) in 2013. The ratio between citations (91) and citable items (72) turned out to be as high as 1.264. This favorable 2013 ratio confirmed and slightly improved what was obtained in 2012 (1.259), and a similar result is expected in 2014, although relevant yearly fluctuations are possible for small-size journals like JORT.The Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology has been a full open access journal since 2008. This means that all the contents are freely available to readers without any subscriptions. This choice strongly contributed to facilitate JORT’s usage, achieving very high download rates: in 2012, 34,734 full-text articles were downloaded; last year the count rose up to 83,669, and preliminary 2014 data confirm this trend. This helped noticeably the citability of the published papers.The The JORT’s full open access policy shows the peculiarity that no fees are asked from authors, since the whole publication cost is waived by the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (SIOT). This policy, followed from the very beginning, aims at guaranteeing all the authors, Italian and foreign, equal rights to publish their results regardless of their economic resources. At the same time, peer-review transparency could not be questioned, as it occurred elsewhere for systems where authors pay to publish through article processing charges. In society’s purposes, the no-fee policy would have led to the most unconditional results sharing, with very little chance that economical filters might influence the publication of important findings both positively or negatively. Editors, authors, and readers cannot but thank SIOT for such an important and burdensome commitment.In 2014 JORT’s editorial board was renovated in order to deal with a higher submissions volume without compromising duration and quality of the editorial processing. Our journal keeps adhering to a double-blind, double peer-review process, which means that all the papers positively screened by the executive editor undergo a double-blind evaluation by two independent reviewers, selected within the panel of Scientific Referees  for theiThis year, the Consulting Editors Board, which was the board of subordinate editors supervising the peer-review process, changed its name to Associate Editors Board, with an increased number of members and, more importantly, a declared and limited area of expertise for each member. The title change is far more substantial than formal, since the associate editor is not just an editor-in-chief’s consultant, but a key figure of the editorial workflow, whose activity is strictly and transparently related to his special expertise. The choice of the new members depended both on their outstanding scientific activity and on the past contribution to the journal as efficient peer reviewers or proficient advisors, while former consulting editors were confirmed as associate editors based on their performance.Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology welcomes the new associate editors Matthew P. Abdel , Max Aebi , Annunziato Amendola , Michael Cross , Max Haerle , Massimo Innocenti , Cyril Mauffrey , Pietro Randelli , and John Sperling .Next to the former confirmed editors, the Notwithstanding the growing trend of submissions, JORT is still a small-volume journal, with four issues and about 40 published articles per year. This volume is the consequence of a strict manuscript selection obtained through scrupulous peer-review. The rejection rate, i.e., the fraction of submissions that are lastly not accepted for publication, increased progressively from 60 % in 2009 to beyond 80 % in 2012 and stabilized at this level. In the light of our recent submissions’ quality, this rejection rate guarantees an adequate scientific level of the accepted manuscripts.On a regular basis the publisher provides the editorial board with data about “usage” and citation of the journal contents. This information is exploited by the editor-in-chief to plan the editorial policy. Rarely is such information shared with readers, although it might be interesting and possibly beneficial for most potential authors.Remarkably, the two most read papers in the last 3 years were an original article dealing with limb reconstruction after tumor resection  and a reInterestingly, within the sources of citations listed by ISI Web of Science, the knee seems to be the most citable subject of papers published in 2012–2013, since the three  most cited papers were two review articles , 6 and aIn Scopus, the most cited article of the period 2012–2013 reports an in vitro study about a novel technique for the treatment of depressed articular fractures . This reThe editorial policy of medical journals is influenced by the purpose of sustaining and increasing the journal’s citability. Although citation-based scientometrics are often overestimated, they still represent the most common and validated way to evaluate the scientific quality of a journal's production. In medical literature, review articles are usually highly cited papers and case reports the least cited ones, and this has led many journals to offer more and more invited reviews and exclude case reports from possible contributions. The JORT’s editorial board decided not to influence or filter the authors’ production, promoting spontaneous submission and guaranteeing proper consideration for all the manuscript types. So far the citations analysis confirms the efficacy of such a liberal editorial policy. The current issue building is substantially representative of our submissions, with original articles prevailing over the other types of manuscripts, as it is supposed to be for every healthy and vital scientific journal. All the fields of clinical and pre-clinical research are welcome, as long as our ethical standards are fulfilled. Case reports are not excluded nor will be, since they have a definite role in medical literature as potential triggers for future research. Obviously, strict conformity to the rigorous eligibility criteria is requested , neglectJournal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology aims at consolidating its position of serious and reliable scientific journal dealing with all the aspects of musculoskeletal medicine and surgery, offering quality selection through rigorous and transparent peer-review, clear visibility through full open access policy, and high citability by means of effective indexing in most databases and search engines. We all—editors, authors, and readers—are indebted to the founder Prof. Francesco Pipino, who recently passed away, for leaving such an impressive inheritance to the Italian orthopedic community, and cannot but feel a strong commitment to the continuation of his project.As for the future, the


Open science describes the practice of carrying out scientific research in a completely transparent manner, and making the results of that research available to everyone. Isn’t that just ‘science’? Reinventing Discovery [Open science is the practice of making everything in the discovery process fully and openly available, creating transparency and driving further discovery by allowing others to build on existing work. When I read such definitions, I think ‘but isn’t that just science?’ Sadly not. In his review of Michael Neilsen’s book iscovery , Timo Haiscovery . And whoAt what point did we allow science to become closed? How did we allow this to happen?At present, open science is seen as an optional extra, on the fringes of everyday research: open access to articles is offered at additional cost; including raw data in publications isn’t mandatory; anonymous peer review is the default. Imagine the opposite. Imagine having to pay to make your work closed; imagine having to state and then justify why your raw data should remain secret. In other words, imagine if open science was considered normal, and closed science considered weird. Wouldn’t the world be a better place?Of course, in some cases, privacy and anonymity are justified. However, we should never kill good ideas because of fringe cases. I call this the ‘mobile phone paradox’. The mobile phone is an incredible, world-changing invention that allows two people, anywhere in the world, to communicate with one another. Yet they do not always work, because in some areas there is no signal. Should we have not invented mobile phones because in some cases they will not work? Of course this is ridiculous. The same is true of open science - it will not always work, but it is still the right thing to do.There are six commonly accepted pillars of open science: open data, open access, open methodology, open source, open peer review and open education.Open data is the process of releasing both raw and processed data from your experiments, enabling others to analyse it without restriction. That data should be released is obvious; but which data? In my opinion, all raw data generated in the pursuit of your experiment should be released , and at least enough to regenerate completely the analysis you yourself performed. As important as the data are the metadata; releasing raw data with poor metadata is just another way of obfuscating the scientific process.We should consider the data to be the main publication, and the paper a secondary, less important part; the data will outlive the paper, as others re-analyse within the context of new scientific discoveries. Imagine if the human genome project had only released the ‘interesting parts’ of the genome? So many scientific discoveries would have been delayed.Alongside the scientific argument is the moral argument; as Hannay alludes to, it is no longer acceptable for scientists to hold on to data until they have extracted every last possible publication from it. The data do not belong to the scientist, they belong to the funder (quite often the taxpayer). Datasets should be freely available to those who funded them. Scientists who hoard data, far from pushing back the boundaries of human knowledge, instead act as barriers to discovery.Of course, we should always be careful to ensure appropriate consent is given, and that data cannot result in the harm of any given individual or group. However, it is ironic that many of us are careless about personal data every day, yet demand that scientific data are held up to a higher standard.Open access is the model under which papers are available for anyone to read without having to pay, and that license allows secondary use such as text-mining. Others have spoken about this at great length, but some points are worth re-iterating: it is immoral to expect those who funded the research (taxpayers) to pay to access the results of that research; it is illogical that researchers  have to pay; or that institutions who employ those authors have to pay. Nothing about the current closed-access publication model makes sense. Who should pay? The funder, of course; and when there is no funder, or there are no funds, then there are preprint servers (such as arXiv and bioRxiv) and institutional repositories.F1000Research [F1000Research is an open-access publisher.I have no problem with publishers making money from the scientific process. However, I believe that in order to do so, they should add value. Many will say that they add value; and some do; but many more do not. Typesetting and PDF generation are not ‘adding value’. A good example of ‘adding value’ are the ‘living figures’ introduced by Research , figuresAn open methodology is simply one which has been described in sufficient detail to allow other researchers to repeat the work and apply it elsewhere. Isn’t that simply ‘the methods section’? Of course, there are times when researchers may have access to unique resources - a cell line, or specific computer hardware - which means that others cannot repeat what they did. That doesn’t matter. One of the major reasons we publish is so that others can learn from what we have done, and revealing how you carried out an experiment is at the heart of any publication.Open source generally refers to open and free access to the blueprint of a product; applied to software, it refers to the source code. There are hundreds of different open-source software licenses, and the arguments for and against are detailed and nuanced. However, I refer you to ‘Open methodology’ above; if you use software as part of the scientific method, then the source code should be available to read (preferably via a website such as GitHub or SourceForge), the software should compile and run and there should be a description of the core algorithms. The software you develop is part of the methods section, and it is the easiest part to share. One can distribute software throughout the world at the push of a button; the same cannot be said of a laboratory. Software should be (and in fact is) driving the open-science movement.British Medical Journal gathered convincing evidence that open review did no damage to the quality of peer reviews [I have written extensively about this , 5, as h reviews ; yet sti reviews . When reOpen education refers to the open and free availability of educational resources. This does not mean that you cannot charge for education - no one can make the tutor work for free - but the resources that are used to educate can be made freely available. Why would you do that? So that others can use and improve them, and so that standards can be set and reached. In my own field, bioinformatics, this is being driven by movements such as GOBLET , 9 and SOpen science isn’t a movement, it’s just (good) science. It’s also the future. Science, and particularly scientific publishing, is at a turning point. It reminds me of retail in the 1990s, just as the internet was beginning to take off. Many huge, successful retailers took one look at the internet and thought ‘That’ll never catch on’. Five years later they were closing stores and winding-up their business as the more innovative and agile internet companies replaced them. Open science is the future, and it will replace closed science. I encourage you to embrace it.


Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders. We feel that with the ever-changing landscape of spinal conditions as well as health-care utilization and the need for a forum to voice cutting-edge and multidisciplinary spine research worldwide, [With the start of 2016, we at the journal would like to wish all our readers, reviewers and Editorial Board members a most happy and prosperous new year. Ushering in this year, the journal has made some considerable changes. For one, the journal has been renamed Scoliosis journal as its official journal and Dr. Hans-Rudolf Weiss became its first Editor-in-Chief [Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders. Currently, the journal remains an open access, multidisciplinary, peer- reviewed publication that focuses on original, primary research articles as well as broad narrative/systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The journal is indexed in PubMed and in numerous other major search engines. BioMed Central remains the publisher of the journal.The start of a new year is also a time for reflection. In order to understand where we are headed, we must acknowledge and appreciate where we have been. After 2 years since the formation of the Society on Scoliosis Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT), the board of the society launched in 2006 the in-Chief . Dr. WeiSpeed of publication – The average time of article submission to acceptance is currently 42 days. We aim to have articles fully published and indexed within one month of acceptance.Flexibility – The journal has no limits to color images and number of authors for published articles. The journal also encourages deposition of datasets and other supplemental information to accompany the articles, such as multimedia. Articles are also provided links to PubMed and other relevant articles.Full disclosure – The journal firmly believes in full disclosure and transparency. As such, in addition to the authors’ disclosure statements, reviewer comments will also be available online to accompany the published article.Worldwide accessibility and open access – All published articles are available for full download without any fees to the reader or institution.Indexing – All published articles will be automatically indexed in PubMed, and in over 40 other abstracting and indexing databases.Optimized reach – The BioMed Central website has over 9 million visitors each month. In addition, a dedicated marketing and public relations team exists to help disseminate the published material within and beyond the academic community. Various tools  will be utilized to disseminate the research findings in a timely manner and to maximize impact.Article metrics – The journal will track the number of times the article has been accessed, cited, covered in the media and blogs, shared via social media , and bookmarked/rated/discussed via bibliographic tools/sites . This service will further give both the authors and readers an indication of the global impact of the article.Personalized approach – The Editors-in-Chief and Editorial Board will provide a personalized and rapid attention to the needs and concerns of the authors. The Editors strive to perform thorough, fair and constructive peer review of all manuscripts, and in line with guidelines and best practice recommendations issued by organizations such as the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE), and journal policies [policies .Although the journal has enjoyed a rather auspicious start and sustainability, it has also managed to remain at the forefront of medical publishing. Some of the strengths of the journal are as follows:We invite you to join us in embarking in a new era for the journal – a new frontier in the review, publication and dissemination of research and knowledge of spine disorders and conditions. These new beginnings will entail a multidisciplinary approach to spine research, a globalization of broad spine topics, rigorous peer-review, expeditious publishing and continued open access, utilization of social media and other platforms to maximize reach and impact, and quality-driven evidence-based spine care in scientific reporting.


Peer review of journal articles is an important step in the research process. Editors rely on the expertise of peer reviewers to properly assess submissions. Yet, peer review quality varies widely and few receive training or guidance in how to approach the task.This paper describes some of the main steps that peer reviewers in general and, in particular, those performing reviewes of randomised controlled trials (RCT), can use when carrying out a review. It can be helpful to begin with a brief read to acquaint yourself with the study, followed by a detailed read and a careful check for flaws. These can be divided into ‘major’ (problems that must be resolved before publication can be considered) and ‘minor’ (suggested improvements that are discretionary) flaws. Being aware of the appropriate reporting checklist for the study being reviewed (such as CONSORT and its extensions for RCTs) can also be valuable.Competing interests or prejudices might corrode the review, so ensuring transparency about them is important. Finally, ensuring that the paper’s strengths are acknowledged along with a dissection of the weaknesses provides balance and perspective to both authors and editors. Helpful reviews are constructive and improve the quality of the paper. The proper conduct of a peer review is the responsibility of all who accept the role. Peer review of journal articles is an important process in research. It is part of the underlying engine that aims to sort out which papers will be published and what modifications are needed before this occurs.It is easy to assume that reviewers’ duties and editors’ objectives are identical: we all want to see that good papers are accepted and flawed ones rejected, and that all are papers improved by the review process. In a study of over 200 reviewers of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in high impact medical journals, reviewers ranked activities such as ‘evaluating the risk of bias’, and ‘checking that the conclusions were consistent with the results’, top . HoweverEditors rely on the expertise of their peer reviewers to provide the necessary background  to properly assess submissions. While there are imperfections in the peer review system and some doubts about the impact of peer review , 3, it iIt is a good idea to read the paper soon after your commission to referee it. Leaving it to the last minute risks introducing a delay if you discover a problem which means that you cannot complete it . In any case, a rapid read allows you to get a fast grasp of the content to prepare you for the full task. Breaking the research study into its component parts can help you to understand the main elements of the study. For those familiar with doing this step in critical appraisal, the example component parts for most RCTs would be: Participants/Patient, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes (or PICO). For studies that are not RCTs, many of these components are still relevant – for example, Participants/Problem/Population, Issue/Index , and Outcomes. Identifying what the study’s question is can help to initially orient you to the paper and consider whether the most appropriate study design was used to answer the question posed by the researchers.Many journals ask their reviewers to classify remaining flaws into ‘major’ (defined as requiring satisfactory resolution before publication can be considered) and ‘minor’ . This is a useful classification system to follow anyway, even if not a requirement of the journal.Among the things that editors have to decide, one of the most essential is whether a paper is fatally flawed. This means that, whatever else – even if a fascinating topic, and beautifully crafted in breathless prose – a critical problem may mean it cannot be published, even with complete overhaul. The word ‘fatal’ implies no hope of resuscitation. Sometimes what appears to be a fatal flaw may actually be inadequate reporting , in which case, stop the review until this is addressed with the authors of the paper . The Editor/editorial office may ask the authors to provide more information to resolve the impasse. Some journals screen for certain types of fatal flaws before sending papers for review; others do not. If the issue is not inadequate reporting and there is truly a fatal flaw, stop. There is nothing else necessary to comment on. Focus your report on that fatal flaw; however, do mention that you did not review the remainder of the paper. Your responsibility as a peer reviewer ends when you describe how it is not possible to repair this paper. Bear in mind that what is a ‘fatal’ flaw can be quite subjective and will vary between journals, editors, and reviewers. What some believe is fatal, others may see as a major flaw that is reparable in some way.Major flaws are serious flaws that must be addressed before publication can be considered appropriate. Some examples of major flaws, that are applicable to many study designs, are provided in Box 1.There are special requirements for the conduct and reporting of RCTs, and peer reviewers should carefully check that these requirements have been met. Unfortunately, peer reviewers are not usually good at detecting these . In one Randomised ; Attrition ; and Measurement .Critically appraising the RCT to determine its risk of bias, and where necessary, whether this has been appropriately acknowledged, is important. Reviewers who are less experienced with critical appraisal might find using the mnemonic RAMbo useful to assess key types of potential bias: It is good practice to undertake an extra step in reviewing RCTs, to check either the published protocol, or its registry entry, to establish whether all measured outcomes were reported. The statistical analyses of RCTs sometimes require specialized expertise. If you are unsure whether the analyses have been performed or interpreted correctly, do not be afraid to alert the editor to this and report that a statistical review is also required. Journals often have statistical reviewers they can call on, and alerting the Editors to a specific need may be very helpful.Examples of minor flaws include writing that is clumsy; lack of clarity in some of the argument ; minor details missing or inadequately reported; tables or figures that duplicate the text or, conversely, are not appropriately referred to; unclear tables or figures; or referencing errors. Tables and figures should typically be self-contained. This means that it should be possible to understand them without reference to the text.Sometimes you might want to debate a statement that you disagree with. Here, we enter a more subjective territory. Some of your comments may be very helpful – and authors may well thank the reviewer for the suggestion (this is common), or refute it with some well-constructed arguments (just as common!). Nevertheless, it is worth labelling your concerns as those suggested improvements which you think the authors need to take up before publication, and those which are best left to the discretion of the authors and editors. Figure Where better to find guidelines about which items are essential for each study design than those intended for use by authors? Reporting guidelines can be used to help inform peer review . There aReporting guideline checklists follow the flow of the paper, presenting items in approximately the order encountered, from the Introduction through to Discussion Fig. . Many, bNoting reporting guideline items that have not been reported, or not reported well, should be included in your review. You might detect a major flaw, such as inappropriate statistical analyses or something that has increased the study’s risk of bias but has not been appropriately explained or accounted for in the limitations and interpretations of the results. However, not adhering to a reporting item does not necessarily constitute a major flaw: missing information might simply reflect the author not reporting specific or enough information in the paper, something which might be easily resolved at the revision stage, and so might be more appropriate to classify as a minor flaw.BMJ now requires a statement about patient involvement in setting the research question, and the design, implementation, and dissemination of the research [The journal that you are reviewing for might also have specific requirements. For example, the research . These aThe CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement has been available for many years now  form. You can list your prejudices here among the usual questions about whether you have financial or non-financial interests that might be advantaged or disadvantaged by publication of the paper. This will enable the Editor to evaluate your comments appropriately.How can you reject my paper when…”, or even “Why should I revise it? ……the reviewers thought it was fine!”While the rejection of a paper can be demoralizing, all authors experience it at some stage and constructive reviews improve papers. Because publication in quality journals can influence careers in a very competitive world, rejection can exact a heavy toll. Reviewers have a responsibility to deliver criticisms carefully and constructively. There is usually something good about every paper that you can find to comment on. Making some positive and constructive comments to go with the disagreeable ones about aspects of the paper that need to be improved can help to keep your review balanced. Of course, positive comments must not be overdone in poor quality papers – this can create problems for the Editors if the Authors subsequently appeal: “Different journals have widely different policies. The usual system allows your comments, which are written anonymously, to be read by the submitting authors , with an additional place to provide confidential comments that the paper authors do not see. This can be used to advise the editors about something very sensitive – for example, that you suspect plagiarism or research misconduct, or that you have some personal thoughts that you need to keep private for some reason. Otherwise, anything you have to say should be said transparently to the Authors just as much as the Editors.ad hominem comments.Many journals now make the identity of the reviewer as well as the authors open . But in any case, always imagine that your identity is known to the authors, and afford respect and courtesies accordingly. In other words, never hide behind anonymity  to write rude or Many authors wait anxiously for news of their paper from the journal. It seems to take forever, and the delay is often very costly for them – they cannot easily progress with a second paper, they need the publication for promotion or a grant application, and so on. The rate-limiting step can sometimes be finding appropriate people who agree to review the paper and then waiting for the reviewers’ reports to be submitted. If you commit to doing the review, make sure you include the ‘complete-by’ date in that commitment. Many journals have elaborate reminder systems. Additional delay is as discourteous as a rude comment.We all have more to do than time to do it, and it can sometimes be tempted to rush the completion of a refereeing task. Check it for typographical and grammatical errors , as well as general sense.The role of a reviewer comes with responsibility. The contribution that peer review can make to ensuring that published research is valid and clearly reported is often influenced by the quality of the peer review itself. Performing peer review of papers is an important contribution that every researcher needs to make, and it can be rewarding for a variety of reasons – including that, by reviewing papers, you learn to identify errors which you may then be less likely to make yourself. Developing solid skills in peer reviewing research papers is as important a skill as being able to write one.Major flaws - research papers in generalRequired ethics approval, and participant consent, was not obtained. This may be considered a fatal flaw by most journals;Methods that are not described sufficiently well to enable replication of the study;Post hoc analyses – that is, analyses that are undertaken after the data are collected and examined, but were not planned beforehand (a priori). The danger of doing this is that interesting analyses might be presented, while uninteresting ones are not, thereby introducing a bias. If performed, post hoc analyses should be carefully labelled as such to avoid confusion, or, only be presented as hypothesis-generating, to be formally tested in a future study;Important and relevant research not cited ;Study limitations not adequately acknowledged;Conclusions that do not match the results and are not supported by data.Major flaws - RCTspost hoc analyses of subgroups discussed in Box 1.The trial was not prospectively registered in an appropriate trial registry, prior to the recruitment of participants. This is fatal for many  journals , and one


International Journal of Implant Dentistry reader,Dear Is there a place for a new electronic open access journal in implant dentistry?Growing field: The use of dental implants is increasing in most countries worldwide. Dental implants have become a safe and preferred therapeutic option in various indications. But more research still needs to be done.Quick publishing: Today the limitations of printed journals can be overcome by electronic publishing. With electronic journals there is no page limit and no need to wait for production deadlines. Articles can be published immediately after acceptance. The quality of the peer-reviewed articles becomes the most decisive factor for acceptance. Articles are published continuously over the year.Rapid spread of information: Readers can find articles in public search engines and download the full version of an article without charges. This ensures that information is spread quickly and may increase readership in a democratic way.Creative Commons: In many countries open access publications are mandatory for public research grants. Thus the information becomes freely available for the scientific community. In the open access structure of IJID, the article’s copyrights stay with the author and not with the publisher. The author can, for instance, reuse figures as long as the original source is cited correctly.Publishing fees granted: The German Association of Dental Implantology (DGI) and the Japanese Society of Oral Implantology (JSOI) pay the article publishing fees for the first four years. However, authors are kindly requested to include publishing fees in the grant applications for their future research projects.We think there is. Here’s why:The German Association of Dental Implantology (DGI) and the Japanese Society of Oral Implantology (JSOI) have decided to pool resources and work together synergistically. This journal initiative is an important part of this collaboration. Together both societies have more than 20,000 members and IJID readers.On behalf of the entire editorial staff, we would like to thank you for your acceptance and utilization of this new publishing tool for your research and personal information.


F1000Research: Tics specialty section, an effort to provide a single portal to modern research on tics and tic disorders. Publications inF1000Research: Tics benefit fromF1000Research’s novel approach to publishing, in which articles can be published within days of submission. Peer review happens after publication and is fully open. When the submitted article or a revision is approved, it is promptly submitted to repositories including NIH’s PubMed Central. In addition to research articles and reviews,F1000Research: Tics will publish study protocols, clinical practice articles, case reports, and data notes. The home page will also provide links to expert recommendations of articles that have appeared elsewhere, and to relevant posters from scientific meetings (http://f1000.com/posters/).F1000Research’s approach is enabled by the capabilities of internet publication, including space to publish the full results of a study rather than just a few graphs selected from the data. Publishing methodologically sound studies without requiring subjective editorial judgments of novelty or broad appeal brings numerous advantages, including minimizing publication bias and shining the light of openness on peer review. To celebrate the launch of the Tics section,F1000Research is offering discounted article processing charges for manuscripts submitted by March 1st 2015. I have had good experiences publishing inF1000Research, and look forward to seeing a wide range of tic-related manuscripts submitted.Tics are repeated, usually suppressible movements or vocalizations. They are the defining features of tic disorders including Tourette syndrome, but many people have them for shorter durations at some point in childhood. This editorial marks the beginning of the Tics have fascinated physicians, psychologists, historians and neuroscientists, in part because so many tics initially appear to be normal movements when seen in isolation, and in part because most tics are temporarily suppressible with effort and concentration.Tics are the defining feature of Tourette syndrome, and may affect as many as half of all people at some point during childhood. Tics range from unobtrusive movements and noises that go unnoticed or are misattributed to allergies or restlessness, to complex patterns of movement or words that may be so frequent, severe or uncomfortable as to be disablingF1000Research: Tics specialty section, an effort to provide a single portal to modern tic research.F1000Research: Tics will publish research articles and reviews, but also study protocols, clinical practice articles, case reports, and data notes. All these flow through theF1000Research submission system and benefit fromF1000Research’s novel approach to publishing, in which articles can be published within days of submission. Fully open peer review happens after publication. The article collection will also highlight both expert article recommendations of articles that have appeared elsewhere, and relevant posters from scientific meetings (http://f1000.com/posters/).Many journals have published research on tic disorders, but hitherto none has focused exclusively on tics. This editorial marks the beginning of theLe roi est mort, vive le roi!In the not-so-distant days of my residency training, staying abreast of relevant literature included paying for paper journals and skimming through them on the occasional call night when there was time to breathe. The word “paper” is important in that sentence, because the format required numerous compromises. Only so many articles could be published. Each article could take only so many pages. It was a given that a publication could contain only a bare fraction of the results. As a consequence, some journals had to reject most papers submitted to them, and could select the papers that would bring a wider audience or greater notoriety.Well, paper is dead. Or if it is not dead, it is lingering like a heroine in a tragic opera whose breath support in the face of a mortal wound mystifies all but the most enthusiastic suspenders of disbelief. Nowadays when I want to find a paper on a given topic, I open a web browser rather than a paper journal. Yet compromises born of the limitations of a paper journal linger on like the vermiform appendix: some publishers remain set on publishing a set number of pages of terse reports with each issue.PLOS ONE published its 100,000th article before reaching its eighth birthday—without imposing limits on words, figures or pages. Somewhat counterintuitively to many raised on paper journals, the avalanche of publications in the past 10 years has improved the overall quality of the scientific literature, not only because of the many outstanding reports included in the total but also by mitigating publication bias.Scientific publishing of course is not dead. A myriad of online journals seem to have sprung up over the past decade or so. Although some appear to be destined for at most ephemeral interest, internet publishing has led to several important advances. The most important of these may be free access to relevant literature for patients and for scientists or clinicians from third-world countries. The most obvious advantage of internet publishing is the opening up of space: as the most prominent example,RESEARCH ARTICLE: A pilot study of basal ganglia and thalamus structure by high dimensional mapping in children with Tourette syndrome (http://f1000research.com/articles/2-207/v1)DATA NOTE: A revised method for measuring distraction by tactile stimulation (http://f1000research.com/articles/3-188/v1)POSTER: A voxel-based morphometry study of Tourette syndrome  (http://f1000.com/posters/browse/summary/1092954)POSTER: A preliminary test of the mnestic hypometria hypothesis in Parkinson disease  (http://f1000.com/posters/browse/summary/1092989)POSTER: A preliminary study of quantitative temporal modeling of the urge to blink during blink suppression  (http://f1000.com/posters/browse/summary/1095804)POSTER:http://f1000.com/posters/search?query=Tourettehttp://f1000.com/prime/1164614http://f1000.com/prime/search/recommendations?query=Tourette&sortBy=f1000FactorF1000Research are instructed to focus solely on whether the methods are appropriate and the results justify the conclusions. Novelty or a subjective prediction of impact are not required. Properly designed and performed studies with negative results are important to the scientific literature; their publication helps minimize the “file-drawer effect,”i.e. the skewed view of a scientific question that results when negative studies are less likely to be published than positive studies4. Of course a specialty area like tic disorders benefits when predicted interest to a broad audience is not required.Reviewers forThe nearly unlimited space on the internet also allows abolishing paper relics like color figure charges, arbitrary limits on the number of figures, and the relegating of information needed for review to a separate supplement. This brings up a benefit that I have only recently learned to appreciate: open data.F1000Research requires publication of thedata, not just a graph or two summarizing the data. This requirement is new to some, but increasingly funders like NIH and the Wellcome Trust also mandate releasing data from research they support5. This move is supported by many scientists7 and some publishers10. One obvious reason for data publication is that many kinds of research generate more data than a table or plot can adequately summarize. As Tom Nichols recently wrote:x,y,z brain atlas coordinates of activation, a dataset that can be recorded on a Post-it note! While figures may show the pattern of brain activation, if any quantitative result (point estimate ± standard error) is given, it is only for a selected region of the brain. Is it really acceptable practice that, of the gigabytes of raw and processed data that are generated, only [kilobytes] of data are ultimately shared?”11“[A]n fMRI study requires hundreds of man-hours, costly scanner time, and laborious data analysis to process gigabytes of image data. Yet, what is the quantitative result that is the core of a published paper? A list ofF1000Research debuted a data visualization tool by which the reader could replot tabular data at will without leaving the online article (see the Data Plotter in12). Open data brings unexpected benefits as well. For instance, publications with full data release are more highly cited13. This may relate to the observation that authors willing to share data had higher quality data and more appropriate analyses14. Additionally, data sharing preserves information to enable future meta-analyses and other uses. For example, recently I have been reviewing the literature on the first few months of the course of tic disorders. Many times I encountered studies that had collected data I was interested in, but the report was focused on other results and the information I wanted was omitted. In one case, even a full-length monograph had to make choices about which data would appear in tables and text, and omitted the data I was seeking. Finally, anyone who has been doing science long enough may have lost large data sets, or found them on a medium that had become corrupted or was no longer convenient to access. In these scenarios, publication of the full data would have benefited the original researcher as much as anyone else, especially since permanently self-archiving data carries ongoing costs that may not be supported by grants that end after a few years.Other researchers may think of ways of looking at the data that the submitter had never considered. For instance, last yearF1000Research brings additional advantages related to its strategy of post-publication open review. I for one am heartily weary of the delay and frustrations that come from having a submitted manuscript rejected for reasons of interest and breadth alone, addressing sometimes uninformed or even snarky unsigned reviews, adapting to a new journal’s word limits, reformatting, and waiting for the cycle to begin again. Or consider that when an experiment ends, traditionally it has been unreasonable to expect to publish it in time to cite it in a grant application due next month. By contrast, withF1000Research: Tics it is quite possible.Some of these advantages are shared by numerous publications. But15. This is a problem across a wide range of journals, and in fact highly selective journals tend to have higher, not lower, retraction rates18. In part this is likely due to the fact that “man bites dog” (or a paradigm-busting new result) makes great news copy but is less likely to be replicated consistently19. Open reviews, along with open data, allow the scientific community to assess the quality of the reviews as well as the quality of the submission. One recent example came from a report claiming that remote effects of one person’s experience could be detected on another person’s EEG: silent rejection of the manuscript, or publication without open data and review, would not have been nearly so instructive to the scientific community as the thoughtful comments and re-analysis of the primary data by a peer reviewer21.More importantly, open data and open reviews address a real and topical problem in science: reproducibility22. However, in addition to other failings—e.g., it does not correlate significantly with statistical power23—the impact factor was never intended to measure the impact  of individual papers. Numerous prominent scientists, scientific societies and publishers have signed The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which calls for an end to using journal-level metrics to judge the quality of an individual’s scientific contributions24. Since online searches for individual papers became widely accessible, the citation rate for a given paper has become less tightly associated with the impact factor of the journal in which it appeared25.Most readers will be familiar with the journal impact factor, a journal-level citation metric that has some validityPublishing all appropriate contributions regardless of predicted breadth or novelty, and publishing Data Notes, study protocols, case reports, and commentary in addition to traditional research articles and reviews, are strategies aimed at improving the scientific literature rather than at inflating a journal-level metric. Some of the publications will be “hot” new science seeking rapid publication so as not to be scooped. But if some other publications are of lower quality or novelty, at least they are accompanied by the full data set and open reviews, so readers can judge the merits independently (or even contribute to the discussion).26“You must try new things. … If you don’t try, you won’t learn. If you don’t learn, you won’t succeed”. —Mark WillesF1000Research’s publication model, it may be natural to hesitate at making one’s work publicly available, “warts and all,” before critique from one’s peers. Similarly, opening the reviews of one’s work for all to read may sound scary. Yet physicists and mathematicians have gotten along fine posting pre-reviewed manuscripts on arXiv28, and the simple requirement that peer reviews be signed seems to produce a remarkable tempering effect on the tone of critical comments. I have had good experiences publishing inF1000Research, and look forward to more withF1000Research: Tics.Anything new will always bring some fear. On initial exposure toF1000Research: Tics will be straightforward. Detailed author guidelines are available here (http://F1000Research.com/author-guidelines#oep). During submission, the author simply indicates that the submission is intended for theTics section. After initial quality control, submissions are published immediately and sent out for peer review. Peer review reports are signed and receive individually citable DOIs. For instance, a Data Note from my lab led to a thoughtful review that added important context and can be cited independently29. Articles not approved by initial peer review can be revised without additional fees and re-reviewed. Once approved, the current version is promptly submitted to PubMed Central without embargo, a real benefit to authors funded by NIH and several other funding bodies. Importantly, I do not select reviewers or control publication forF1000Research: Tics. I do get to choose whether to accept a submission into theTics collection, but excluded articles will remain eligible forF1000Research. I will aim initially to exclude only for topical irrelevance, in keeping withF1000Research’s philosophy.Submitting toF1000Research: Tics, and invite manuscripts from other authors addressing all aspects of tics and tic disorders. All ofF1000Research’s article types are welcome, from case reports and opinion articles through software tools and study protocols to exciting results from large research studies (http://F1000Research.com/author-guidelines#f1000at). I encourage organizers of professional meetings to invite speakers and poster authors to submit posters or slides toF1000Posters (at no charge) or full articles toF1000Research: Tics. The article processing fees are modest, andF1000Research is celebrating the launch of theTics section with an initial discount on articles submitted successfully to the collection by March 1st 2015. Welcome toF1000Research: Tics!I will be submitting several papers to


Life, it is my great pleasure to write this editorial highlighting our achievements during this period, which were so many!One year after I assumed the position of Editor in Chief of As I wrote in the first editorial, my commitment was to make the journal a success, with the launch of exciting special issues, publication of high quality papers as well as inclusion of the journal in major indexing and abstracting services . BasicalLife would provide a forum for the publication of new hypotheses aiming to encourage discussion and creative hypothesis testing by members of the scientific community. Now, the journal has a specific section dedicated to this important theme, i.e., Hypotheses in the Life Sciences [In my inaugural editorial as Editor in Chief, I highlighted that Sciences .In collaboration with MDPI, I have implemented a new system of open peer review in order to demonstrate the rigorous, fair and efficient standard of our editorial work . The firLife more transparent by sharing the author’s testimonials about the entire editorial process, its quality, and the time it has taken. This will highlight the quality of our work by the words of those who have worked closely with us. At a time when the review process in scientific journals can take several months, and an additional several months until the paper is officially published, a platform for fast, efficient and cost-effective publication without undue delay or expense is essential for any scientific research.For 2015, I am also preparing some new interesting features, such as publishing the feedback from the authors who have published in our journal. This transparency is very important because there is little information in the literature about the quality of the peer review process and the time it takes. So far, this kind of information, which is usually hidden by the journals, passes between colleagues; you might hear that some journals are particularly slow in processing, whereas others are known for their effectiveness. However, when you try to find something more concrete on the matter, the information is rather fragmented and incomprehensive. In order to provide systematic and clear information to the scientific community, I am working to make the editorial work in Life. Hope you have the pleasure of working with us in the future. Your manuscript and feedback will be most welcome!By the achievements pointed out in this editorial, which covers only one year (!), you may have an idea of how committed we are in providing a high quality journal to the scientific community, with all the advantages of an open access platform. I truly believe that the open access movement provides the setting to radically reform scientific publishing, and I am making every effort to accomplish that with


Authors of papers submitted from January 2016 will be given the option to publish the peer review history of their paper Scientific peer review is regularly criticized as being ineffective and ‘broken', although it continues to be widely used in academic publishing. While peer review certainly has its drawbacks, we regard this process as an essential valuable mechanism to improve the quality and accuracy of the scientific record, and it helps us editors to decide about the publication of a paper. Reviewer reports provide fascinating insights into the merits and limitations of our papers and often foster revisions that make a substantial difference to the robustness and impact of the papers that we publish. A study that challenges established knowledge can lead to long, deep discussions between authors, editors and reviewers that so far, at our journal, remain confidential.By enabling the publication of these peer review documents, we take a step towards opening up our editorial decision-making process.As a journal, we are committed to openness and transparency, and to make our peer review process more transparent, as a trial, we will be publishing all reviewer comments to authors and author rebuttal letters for published papers submitted from January 2016, unless the authors ask us not to. Upon acceptance of a paper, authors will be asked whether they agree to the publication of the peer review file along with the accepted version of the manuscript. We will evaluate the success of the trial by monitoring parameters such as author opt-out rates, and are planning to provide a report within a year.Nature Communications. If a manuscript is submitted to us after review at another Nature journal, those referee reports and author rebuttal letters will remain confidential, as those reports were submitted without prior consent to be published. Similarly, peer review identities will only be released if a reviewer explicitly agrees to this, for example by signing the comments made to the authors with their name. Apart from such circumstances, we will continue to honour reviewer anonymity. Further details can be found in a separate FAQ document at http://www.nature.com/ncomms/authors/ncomms-transparent-peer-review.pdf.These files will only contain the peer review history at As a multidisciplinary journal, transparent peer review might be new to some of our authors, but we are not the first journal to implement this process. Similar schemes have already been successfully implemented in various scientific disciplines by the European Geosciences Union, at BioMed Central, for EMBO journals, and elsewhere.By enabling the publication of these peer review documents, we take a step towards opening up our editorial decision-making process. We hope that this will contribute to the scientific appreciation of the papers that we publish, in the same way as these results are already discussed at scientific conferences. We also hope that publication of the reviewer reports provides more credit to the work of our reviewers, as their assessment of a paper will now reach a much larger audience.It is important to note that published peer review files will focus on the comments of the reviewers and the authors' responses to them. Correspondence between authors and editors, reviewer comments only to the editors, as well as the internal discussions between editors will remain confidential. In doing so, we aim to strike a balance between ensuring that the information that led to the decision to publish the paper is freely available, and at the same time enabling reviewers, authors and editors to communicate frankly and privately where necessary. In cases where not all of the circumstances that lead to an editorial decision on a manuscript are fully captured in peer review files, editorial comments may be added to the peer review document. The ultimate decision whether to publish a paper lies with the editors, and is always taken after careful consideration of all arguments raised.This move towards more transparency will coincide with the completion of our transformation to full open access. From January all new papers will be published with a Creative Commons open access licence, and all subscription-based content from our archive will be made free to read and is available for non-commerical text and data mining. We hope that our readers and authors will enjoy the free access to our papers and the forthcoming peer review files, and that this will support and enhance the understanding and accessibility of our published papers.


Life  is a new journal that deals with new and sometime difficult interdisciplinary matters. Consequently, the journal will occasionally be presented with submitted articles that are controversial and/or outside conventional scientific views. Some papers recently accepted for publication in Life have attracted significant attention. Moreover, members of the Editorial Board have objected to these papers; some have resigned, and others have questioned the scientific validity of the contributions. In response I want to first state some basic facts regarding all publications in this journal. All papers are peer-reviewed, although it is often difficult to obtain expert reviewers for some of the interdisciplinary topics covered by this journal. I feel obliged to stress that although we will strive to guarantee the scientific standard of the papers published in this journal, all the responsibility for the ideas contained in the published articles rests entirely on their authors. Discussions on previously published articles are welcome and I hope that, by fostering discussion and by keeping an open-minded attitude towards new ideas, the journal will spur progress in this little explored, difficult and very exciting area of knowledge.2012, 2, 1-105” was published recently online and is due to appear in Issue 1, Volume 2, 2012 of Life, at the end of March this year [Life [In particular, the paper “Andrulis, E.D. Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life. Life his year  had alsoar [Life , she wasChemical Abstracts, PubMed, Web of Science or more recently, from Google Scholar. Very often we also ask the Editorial Board members to review papers or ask those of them who have relevant knowledge and expertise to supply possible reviewer names. We also use the reviewer names suggested by the authors, but we do this with great care, checking the background of each potential reviewer and their publication record, as well as ensuring they have no collaborations with the authors that may be construed as a conflict of interest. I should stress that although we try to encourage bold, innovative science, we reject many submissions. In the case of the Dr. Andrulis’s long paper, the two reviewers were both faculty members of reputable universities different than the author’s and both went to considerable trouble presenting lengthy review reports. Dr. Andrulis revised his manuscript as requested, and the paper was subsequently published.As stated earlier, finding reviewers able to cross discipline boundaries as is often needed for multidisciplinary “origin of life” topics  is partiLife.Regardless of opinion on specific papers that have been published to date, I sincerely hope that all of our articles, most of which are outstanding, will continue to be read and discussed. Our editorial procedure is under scrutiny by the Editorial Board, who wishes to be more closely involved in the editorial process, and we are striving to further improve our editorial service. We welcome comments on the Dr. Andrulis’s paper or any other papers that have been published in


PLOS Biology announces a new article type, Open Highlights, which uses a recent research article to nucleate a short synthesis of up to ten related research articles from other PLOS journals and from the wider Open Access corpus. PLOS Biology was launched back in 2003, part of our remit was to broaden access to scientific research, not only in the literal sense via our open access publishing model, but also figuratively by offering a level of unpackaging and contextualisation of scientific results. Initially, we achieved this with our Synopses, which were penned by staff and freelance writers and focussed on individual research articles.When PLOS Biology. Replacing Synopses with a format we’ve called “Open Highlights” allows us editors to provide more context for the findings published in our journal, to link it to related work of interest, to help curate PLOS content, and to highlight the bigger picture.In recent times we’ve we spotted a missed opportunity; PLOS publishes an amazing scope of research, with fantastic papers appearing in all seven journals. As part of our contribution to helping readers grapple with this large body of science, we’ve decided to broaden our purview and highlight work from across all PLOS journals alongside individual articles published by We’ve published 965 Synopses over the last 13 years; from the first , each haPLOS Biology research articles as keystones around which to nucleate a short synthesis of up to ten related research articles from other PLOS journals and from the wider Open Access corpus. Covering broad themes such as tomatoes [bacterial quorum-sensing [a Collection [PLOS Biology itself (We successfully trialled this idea on the PLOS Biologue blog platform with a series of posts called “Slices of PLOS,” using recent tomatoes  and bact-sensing , each blllection  of the py itself ; we see PLOS Biology’s higher visibility to bring the “Slice” approach to a wider readership and thereby enhance the discoverability of the Open Access research discussed. Thus Slice of PLOS has grown wings to become Open Highlights, and the first one is published today [blog post [Open Highlights Collection page [By transforming this blog format into a journal article, we can use ed today . To findlog post  and dropion page . We hope


Veterinary Surgery and Anesthesiology section of Frontiers in Veterinary Science is to provide an efficient forum for dissemination and discussion of high-quality scientific information relevant to these and closely related disciplines. This is an exciting endeavor because it fosters engagement of authors, peer reviewers, editors, and readers in the process. Together, we can tackle these challenges!Truly incredible advances have been gained in the past few decades with regard to the clinical practice of veterinary surgery and anesthesiology. Novel investigational techniques and medical procedures have greatly enhanced our abilities to diagnose and treat animals. Use of minimally invasive diagnostic and procedural techniques, improvements in medical equipment, and the advent of molecular biological methods have advanced veterinary medical practice to a level well beyond what was possible just a few short years ago. However, tough challenges remain that will require novel approaches and new ways of thinking. Education of future clinician scientists is at the heart of this advancement; traditional instructional techniques may not meet the needs of future students. An increase in the flexibility and efficiency of veterinary medical education will be needed. In addition, we must have greater awareness of the interplay between human, animal, and environmental health. The importance of these relationships has recently been identified in the tenets of the One Health initiative; this movement has great relevance to the advancement of veterinary surgery and anesthesiology. Another critical component in the growth of these specialties will be concerted application of evidence-based clinical decision making. To that end, we will need to deliberately design high-quality randomized controlled clinical trials and to report the findings of these studies transparently and completely. In this editorial, I will make the case for the importance of these issues in veterinary surgery and anesthesiology and for the role of this specialty journal section in solving these problems. The purpose of the Veterinary education is presently facing many simultaneous challenges. The costs of education for students are rising dramatically and, compounding this problem, recent economic analysis indicates that the net present value and return on investment of veterinary education are low . To addrAlong with veterinary medical education in general, there has been a paradigm shift in veterinary surgery and anesthesia education. Trends are toward decreased use of live animals for teaching of procedures. As a result, there is great interest in use of alternate educational methods. Dedicated clinical skills laboratories are becoming more common at veterinary teaching institutions; these facilities incorporate innovative methods and custom models for use in surgical instruction. Validation is an important component of the process for refinement of these teaching methods. The goal is to improve the surgical education of veterinary students, interns, and surgical residents while decreasing unnecessary use of live animals. Recently, development of simulators  and use In addition to veterinary clinical education needs, there will be a growing requirement for training of scientists in relevant applied and basic science fields. With the pool of funding sources for support of scientific inquiry shrinking, discovery and training will continue to be a challenge. As well, recruitment of talented young clinician-scientists is difficult. New approaches to veterinary scientific exploration may increase available funding. In particular, more concerted efforts should be made to identify and evaluate naturally occurring animal diseases as models of human disease. In addition, veterinary scientific discovery would benefit from increased use of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary teams of investigators working in multiple areas including veterinary and human clinical sciences, basic and applied biological sciences, chemistry, and materials engineering. Communication of such approaches to investigation through scientific journals is important, because areas in which further investigation is needed can be identified and such multidisciplinary approaches promoted.Scientific journals play an integral role in supporting and advancing veterinary education. Peer review and dissemination of the descriptions of pedagogical techniques should be encouraged. Similarly, the efficacy of competency-driven assessments of skills (including surgery and anesthesia) will require validation. High-quality open-access publications are an efficient and cost-effective avenue for delivery of information to students and instructors. Description and validation of novel techniques that reduce the use of live animals in instruction and increase the economic and educational efficiency of veterinary learning can be effectively accomplished through publication in such a forum. And, journals such as Frontiers provide a high-quality open-access mechanism for dissemination of peer-reviewed manuscripts that are essential for the support of veterinary graduate students and investigators.The above approaches to invigorating veterinary scientific education and discovery overlap with several tenets of the One Health Initiative. This movement is intended to foster co-equal collaborations between veterinary and human medical professionals to enhance the health of animals, humans, and the environmentRecognition of animal diseases as models of human diseases is vitally important. However, an efficient method is needed to allow timely sharing of basic and clinical scientific knowledge. To that end, internet-based registries of diseases can be an effective way to disseminate such data; this could encourage multi-institutional studies, potentially increasing numbers of animals in such studies and broadening the geographic relevance of such work. Finally, a critical component of this comparative approach to modern medical advancement is an efficient scientific communication method. Expedited communication of high-quality scientific discovery via open-access journals, such as Frontiers in Veterinary Science, is an efficient mechanism to support the progress of investigators in these endeavors.in vitro studies or statements of personal opinion  to meta-analyses of large randomized controlled trials . Historically, impediments to achievement of this gold standard have hindered application of evidence-based medicine to veterinary surgery and anesthesiology. In particular, low case numbers in published studies from single institutions, the lack of well-defined outcome measures, and absence of appropriate controls diminish the quality of evidence and its applicability to a geographically diverse veterinary practice. Increased multi-institutional collaborations among investigators would lead to an increase in the number of animals enrolled in clinical trials and may also increase the relevance of results to a geographically diverse population. In addition, such studies should be thoughtfully designed to include biologically relevant outcome measures and, when possible, this information should be collected by use of validated clinical outcome instruments  guidelinesin vivo surgery and anesthesiology research. Deliberate use of standardized guidelines during study design, manuscript preparation, and peer review should be encouraged, as it ultimately enhances study quality and serves to maximize impact for evidence-based decision making.An essential component of evidence-based medicine is meticulous reporting of the results of studies. Without this, findings cannot be adequately analyzed and considered by readers and therefore cannot be used for sound clinical decision making. Incomplete or inaccurate reporting of otherwise well-designed clinical trials therefore minimizes the impact of such important scientific knowledge. This can be a particularly vexing problem for veterinary surgery, as it is often difficult to accurately gage success and compare outcomes for various procedures because of sparse or incomplete information in the scientific literature. Likewise, these problems pose great difficulties for anesthesiologists; anesthetic complications for veterinary patients can be rare although important, and a lack of accurate and detailed reporting of clinical studies hampers use of such information to improve the quality and safety of patient care. Undoubtedly, shortcomings in reporting are typically unintentional and the result of the myriad choices that authors face when preparing manuscripts. Recently, there has been an effort to develop guidelines for standardized reporting of medical research. The EQUATOR networkVeterinary Surgery and Anesthesiology specialty section of Frontiers in Veterinary Science will be an excellent forum for rapid dissemination of high-quality research findings in many facets of our profession. As well, it will be an open forum for discussion of the challenges facing us. As per the mission statement, the goals of this section are dissemination of findings from clinical research and basic science studies of naturally occurring and experimental disease with translational potential. The use of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches is encouraged. It is my sincere belief that this will be a dynamic and effective forum for solving these and other challenges that lie ahead. I invite you to actively engage in this scientific discussion and help forge the future of veterinary surgery and anesthesiology!There are many important challenges facing the veterinary profession. In particular, challenges in educational methods, application of the tenets of One Health, integration of evidence-based medicine, and careful integration of standardized study design and reporting guidelines are germane to the specialties of surgery and anesthesiology. The The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.


When a new journal was founded 25 years ago, its editor wrote : ‘The arEvolution, Medicine, and Public Health (EMPH) has been founded to integrate the emergence of evolutionary thinking in many parts of medical science. Like physics and chemistry, evolution is a basic science that permeates medicine and helps to generate explanations for everything we encounter in it. Evolutionary medicine therefore includes any area in which evolutionary thought sheds light on medical and epidemiological issues. Those areas are diverse; they include many traditional disciplines.EMPH.What will this journal publish? The relevant subjects include at least these : the oriThere are also important research questions to be answered : Can antEMPH’s highest priority; the core unit is, for the time being, the original research article. There are also roles here for reviews, commentaries on hypotheses and controversies, book reviews, case studies, and correspondence about recently published articles. Formats for each are available on our website: http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/emph/for_authors/scope_and_purpose.html.The publication of new research is EMPH, we offer authors the credibility of rigorous referees; the visibility and prestige of a prominent publisher; and the stability, distinction and wisdom provided by 17 members of the Board of the Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health Foundation, which owns the journal, and by the 89 associate editors who make up the Editorial Board.Open access is particularly appropriate for a new interdisciplinary journal, whose readers often will not have access to subscription journals in all the fields covered and where libraries often will not have funds for new subscriptions. For this open access journal, we have negotiated a package of fees and waivers that favors authors as much as possible while ensuring financial stability and publisher support. In return for the opportunity to publish in Evolutionary medicine can help to reduce suffering and save lives. It is also full of new ideas, unexpected connections and scientific surprises. There is room here for research on all of that.