- Email: [email protected]
Raising the Bar for Science
Editor’s Page
Raising the Bar for Science Stuart M. Weinstein, MD To replay a moment in time from the 2002 AAPM&R Annual Assembly: when presenting the honorary Rosenthal lectureship on the theme of the future model of physiatrists, I proffered the following phrase: “Embrace the technology, but obey the science.” At that time, I believed that one could foresee the physiatric trend line moving toward advanced technology, more invasive (albeit minimally invasive — call it what you will) and costly procedures. I did not intend to isolate spine care proceduralists, even though they stood front and center in the future’s spotlight. Indeed, this techno-movement applied then, as it does now, to all aspects of physiatric care. My true emphasis was on the need for balance; technology offers huge opportunities, as long as it simultaneously elevates the scientific bar. In fact, raising the scientific bar has consistently been my main mantra as Editor-in-Chief of PM&R. When the idea for this journal was born over 7 years ago, due consideration was given toward the negative effect from competing for original research manuscripts with established rehabilitation medicine journals. While it was my vision that PM&R would provide unique offerings for both clinical and academic physiatrists that were not found in our sister journals, some were dubious regarding the potential scientific value of yet another rehabilitation medicine publication. But my conclusion was competition would undoubtedly raise the quality bar for all stakeholders. Throughout our early years, PM&R’s editors and reviewers have consistently provided rigorous, constructive, evidence-based feedback to the authors who have graciously entrusted us with their manuscripts. In turn, the quality of our published papers has been substantially enhanced, raising the bar for the next author’s submission. And now we are entering a new era in scientific rigor in rehabilitation medicine publications. Let’s fast forward from 2002 to the last quarter of 2013. I was contacted by Dr. Leighton Chan, co-Editor-in-Chief of the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (Archives) to discuss an effort to raise the quality bar for scientific investigation and reporting in physical medicine and rehabilitation research. His interest was clear and resonated deeply within me; it was my mantra. A plan was developed to engage as many editors-in-chief of associated journals and publications to join the movement as possible. The culmination of that endeavor can be found in this issue of PM&R. I am very pleased to co-publish an editorial written by Leighton Chan, MD, MPH, and his co-editor at Archives, Allen Heinemann, PhD, “Elevating the Quality of Disability and Rehabilitation Research: Mandatory Use of the Reporting Guidelines.” (see page 295). As you read this editorial and the postscript acknowledgments, you will note a very impressive listing of 28 journals represented by their head editors that supported this movement, including yours truly. In brief, this plan promotes the following attributes of research performance and reporting: quality, transparency, integrity, and accuracy. The basis of this movement is the mandatory use of reporting guidelines and checklists. Such guidelines exist for randomized controlled trials (http://www.consort-statement.org/home), observational studies (http:// www.strobe-statement.org), systematic reviews and meta-analyses (http://www.prismastatement.org), and case reports (http://www.care-statement.org). While the devil is in the details when it comes to implementation of new author instructions and editor/reviewer education, the senior editorial team at PM&R is fully engaged and ready to proceed, and I expect that implementation of these new standards will begin as suggested, in 2015. Soon enough, researchers and authors will not be able to evade this enhanced reporting process when it comes to submitting and publishing in one of the broad coalition of rehabilitation and related journals that have already agreed to sign on. PM&R 1934-1482/14/$36.00 Printed in U.S.A.
S.M.W. University of Washington Sports and Spine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, School of Medicine, Seattle, WA. Address correspondence to: S.M.W.; e-mail: [email protected] Disclosure: nothing to disclose
ª 2014 by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Vol. 6, 293-294, April 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.03.007
293
294
Weinstein
It is critical to recognize that installment of this new policy is not a punitive action; it is meant to change research and reporting behavior in a positive direction. The ideal outcome that will define success is when our messaging influences not just the written reporting of the research, but before the next project begins, the actual implementation of study design, protocol, and analysis. None of the editors wish to take on the role of policeman/policewoman, but at times, we will have to take a hard line stance. If you happen
RAISING THE BAR FOR SCIENCE
to be the recipient of such feedback, please understand that it is meant constructively. To my great satisfaction, the bar for science has been raised across the board. In this case, competition breeds uniformity of purpose. With respect and gratitude to Drs. Chan and Heinemann for initiating this proposal, PM&R has joined its brethren in this coalition. I encourage you to work with the editors and reviewers of PM&R to advance this important and necessary action.
Raising the Bar for Science Stuart M. Weinstein, MD To replay a moment in time from the 2002 AAPM&R Annual Assembly: when presenting the honorary Rosenthal lectureship on the theme of the future model of physiatrists, I proffered the following phrase: “Embrace the technology, but obey the science.” At that time, I believed that one could foresee the physiatric trend line moving toward advanced technology, more invasive (albeit minimally invasive — call it what you will) and costly procedures. I did not intend to isolate spine care proceduralists, even though they stood front and center in the future’s spotlight. Indeed, this techno-movement applied then, as it does now, to all aspects of physiatric care. My true emphasis was on the need for balance; technology offers huge opportunities, as long as it simultaneously elevates the scientific bar. In fact, raising the scientific bar has consistently been my main mantra as Editor-in-Chief of PM&R. When the idea for this journal was born over 7 years ago, due consideration was given toward the negative effect from competing for original research manuscripts with established rehabilitation medicine journals. While it was my vision that PM&R would provide unique offerings for both clinical and academic physiatrists that were not found in our sister journals, some were dubious regarding the potential scientific value of yet another rehabilitation medicine publication. But my conclusion was competition would undoubtedly raise the quality bar for all stakeholders. Throughout our early years, PM&R’s editors and reviewers have consistently provided rigorous, constructive, evidence-based feedback to the authors who have graciously entrusted us with their manuscripts. In turn, the quality of our published papers has been substantially enhanced, raising the bar for the next author’s submission. And now we are entering a new era in scientific rigor in rehabilitation medicine publications. Let’s fast forward from 2002 to the last quarter of 2013. I was contacted by Dr. Leighton Chan, co-Editor-in-Chief of the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (Archives) to discuss an effort to raise the quality bar for scientific investigation and reporting in physical medicine and rehabilitation research. His interest was clear and resonated deeply within me; it was my mantra. A plan was developed to engage as many editors-in-chief of associated journals and publications to join the movement as possible. The culmination of that endeavor can be found in this issue of PM&R. I am very pleased to co-publish an editorial written by Leighton Chan, MD, MPH, and his co-editor at Archives, Allen Heinemann, PhD, “Elevating the Quality of Disability and Rehabilitation Research: Mandatory Use of the Reporting Guidelines.” (see page 295). As you read this editorial and the postscript acknowledgments, you will note a very impressive listing of 28 journals represented by their head editors that supported this movement, including yours truly. In brief, this plan promotes the following attributes of research performance and reporting: quality, transparency, integrity, and accuracy. The basis of this movement is the mandatory use of reporting guidelines and checklists. Such guidelines exist for randomized controlled trials (http://www.consort-statement.org/home), observational studies (http:// www.strobe-statement.org), systematic reviews and meta-analyses (http://www.prismastatement.org), and case reports (http://www.care-statement.org). While the devil is in the details when it comes to implementation of new author instructions and editor/reviewer education, the senior editorial team at PM&R is fully engaged and ready to proceed, and I expect that implementation of these new standards will begin as suggested, in 2015. Soon enough, researchers and authors will not be able to evade this enhanced reporting process when it comes to submitting and publishing in one of the broad coalition of rehabilitation and related journals that have already agreed to sign on. PM&R 1934-1482/14/$36.00 Printed in U.S.A.
S.M.W. University of Washington Sports and Spine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, School of Medicine, Seattle, WA. Address correspondence to: S.M.W.; e-mail: [email protected] Disclosure: nothing to disclose
ª 2014 by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Vol. 6, 293-294, April 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.03.007
293
294
Weinstein
It is critical to recognize that installment of this new policy is not a punitive action; it is meant to change research and reporting behavior in a positive direction. The ideal outcome that will define success is when our messaging influences not just the written reporting of the research, but before the next project begins, the actual implementation of study design, protocol, and analysis. None of the editors wish to take on the role of policeman/policewoman, but at times, we will have to take a hard line stance. If you happen
RAISING THE BAR FOR SCIENCE
to be the recipient of such feedback, please understand that it is meant constructively. To my great satisfaction, the bar for science has been raised across the board. In this case, competition breeds uniformity of purpose. With respect and gratitude to Drs. Chan and Heinemann for initiating this proposal, PM&R has joined its brethren in this coalition. I encourage you to work with the editors and reviewers of PM&R to advance this important and necessary action.