- Email: [email protected]
The (editorial) year in review
EDITORIAL
The (editorial) year in review David L. Turpin, DDS, MSD, Editor-in-Chief Seattle, Wash
I
am often asked how I choose editorial topics for the Journal. Editorials can be written to inform, clarify, explain, or interpret; to entertain, inspire, commend, or criticize; or simply to fill space. Sometimes I look for a recently submitted manuscript that has helped me to become a better clinician; at other times, I like to raise an issue that I think needs a forum for discussion; and occasionally I feel the need to do some “housekeeping” and make clear some of the policies under which we operate. It has become obvious to me over the past several years that the AJO-DO must continue to adapt to changes in the world of scientific publishing. In the past year, my editorials have fallen into the following categories: the crisis in dental education, controversies about new technologies, support for AAO-sponsored meetings, and the clarification and expansion of the Journal’s policies. I hope you won’t hesitate to offer suggestions for next year’s editorial topics, or join the fray and submit your own guest editorial. The Year of the Dog, 2002, got off to a strong start with an editorial in support of the AAO and the ADA and their efforts to recruit and retain dental faculty. New data from our largest dental institutions show that the declining number of people going into orthodontic education has reached a crisis level, and there is no obvious solution. In support of this claim, we published 2 excellent studies by 2 different groups of orthodontic educators. The first article was “Orthodontic graduate education survey, 1983-2000,” by Bob Keim and Peter Sinclair (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:28). Their findings showed that the number of full- and part-time faculty members is declining, as is the experience level of the instructors. The second study, “Faculty recruitment, retention, and success in dental academia” (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122: 2-8), appeared 6 months later and was written by Carroll-Ann Trotman et al. These authors looked at the teaching crisis from the viewpoint of those in dental education and explored attitudes about teaching, research, job flexibility, and the school environment in
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:581 Copyright © 2002 by the American Association of Orthodontists. 0889-5406/2002/$35.00 ⫹ 0 8/1/130347 doi:10.1067/mod.2002.130347
general. Teaching and research were winners in this group, while the respondents commonly cited lack of control over their chosen careers as a drawback. Many readers were moved to respond to a guest editorial written by Bill Proffit and Jim Ackerman titled “What price progress?” (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:243). The use of new technology was the issue here, with a company that chose to take its product directly to the public—prematurely, according to some. Long-term clinical studies are currently underway, but they have not yet produced the scientific articles upon which evidence-based dentistry can be practiced. Until this happens, the education and breadth of experience of an orthodontist are needed to successfully manage this unique approach to correcting malocclusion. The Journal followed up the guest editorial with several letters to the editor and an interview the new CEO of Align Technology. Two years ago, I made it a priority to provide more visibility for meetings sponsored by the AAO. This included printing the entire scientific portion of the annual session program in the February issue. This year, we added coverage of midyear conferences, and as a result, the Early Treatment Symposium in 2002 surpassed expectations with excellent participation, and the Orthodontist as CEO conference in 2003 is on track to do the same. The need for specific publication policies has never been more obvious to me than in the past year. I wrote 4 editorials explaining policies old and new. For example, all authors are now requested to submit a conflict of interest statement before the acceptance of a manuscript for publication. This policy has been extended to letters to the editor, reviews, and guest editorials. When a conflict exists, the nature of the relationship will be disclosed at the time of publication. If a person holds a patent or is a significant shareholder in a company producing the product being tested, bias would most likely prevent a clear presentation of findings. In reviewing my last 12 months as editor of this historic Journal, I believe my task is to support my orthodontic colleagues in adhering to the highest standards of professional integrity. My reputation is your reputation in this endeavor . . . and yours is mine. 581
The (editorial) year in review David L. Turpin, DDS, MSD, Editor-in-Chief Seattle, Wash
I
am often asked how I choose editorial topics for the Journal. Editorials can be written to inform, clarify, explain, or interpret; to entertain, inspire, commend, or criticize; or simply to fill space. Sometimes I look for a recently submitted manuscript that has helped me to become a better clinician; at other times, I like to raise an issue that I think needs a forum for discussion; and occasionally I feel the need to do some “housekeeping” and make clear some of the policies under which we operate. It has become obvious to me over the past several years that the AJO-DO must continue to adapt to changes in the world of scientific publishing. In the past year, my editorials have fallen into the following categories: the crisis in dental education, controversies about new technologies, support for AAO-sponsored meetings, and the clarification and expansion of the Journal’s policies. I hope you won’t hesitate to offer suggestions for next year’s editorial topics, or join the fray and submit your own guest editorial. The Year of the Dog, 2002, got off to a strong start with an editorial in support of the AAO and the ADA and their efforts to recruit and retain dental faculty. New data from our largest dental institutions show that the declining number of people going into orthodontic education has reached a crisis level, and there is no obvious solution. In support of this claim, we published 2 excellent studies by 2 different groups of orthodontic educators. The first article was “Orthodontic graduate education survey, 1983-2000,” by Bob Keim and Peter Sinclair (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:28). Their findings showed that the number of full- and part-time faculty members is declining, as is the experience level of the instructors. The second study, “Faculty recruitment, retention, and success in dental academia” (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122: 2-8), appeared 6 months later and was written by Carroll-Ann Trotman et al. These authors looked at the teaching crisis from the viewpoint of those in dental education and explored attitudes about teaching, research, job flexibility, and the school environment in
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:581 Copyright © 2002 by the American Association of Orthodontists. 0889-5406/2002/$35.00 ⫹ 0 8/1/130347 doi:10.1067/mod.2002.130347
general. Teaching and research were winners in this group, while the respondents commonly cited lack of control over their chosen careers as a drawback. Many readers were moved to respond to a guest editorial written by Bill Proffit and Jim Ackerman titled “What price progress?” (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:243). The use of new technology was the issue here, with a company that chose to take its product directly to the public—prematurely, according to some. Long-term clinical studies are currently underway, but they have not yet produced the scientific articles upon which evidence-based dentistry can be practiced. Until this happens, the education and breadth of experience of an orthodontist are needed to successfully manage this unique approach to correcting malocclusion. The Journal followed up the guest editorial with several letters to the editor and an interview the new CEO of Align Technology. Two years ago, I made it a priority to provide more visibility for meetings sponsored by the AAO. This included printing the entire scientific portion of the annual session program in the February issue. This year, we added coverage of midyear conferences, and as a result, the Early Treatment Symposium in 2002 surpassed expectations with excellent participation, and the Orthodontist as CEO conference in 2003 is on track to do the same. The need for specific publication policies has never been more obvious to me than in the past year. I wrote 4 editorials explaining policies old and new. For example, all authors are now requested to submit a conflict of interest statement before the acceptance of a manuscript for publication. This policy has been extended to letters to the editor, reviews, and guest editorials. When a conflict exists, the nature of the relationship will be disclosed at the time of publication. If a person holds a patent or is a significant shareholder in a company producing the product being tested, bias would most likely prevent a clear presentation of findings. In reviewing my last 12 months as editor of this historic Journal, I believe my task is to support my orthodontic colleagues in adhering to the highest standards of professional integrity. My reputation is your reputation in this endeavor . . . and yours is mine. 581