Why read this journal?

Abstract

Why do you read professional journals? The obvious answer is to keep up, but doesn’t it seem hard to efficiently sort the wheat from the chaff and find the things that will really help you in your practice? We have all faced the problem of research that apparently is good work, but it seems hard to relate it to the practice of orthodontics. On the other side of the coin, there is the article that seems to offer the panacea for a clinical problem and it is followed next month by another article taking issue with those outcomes and offering a different solution. This is closely coupled with the idea that fundamental research is often not as useful as more clinical research. First, we need a definition of terms. I regard basic or fundamental research as research undertaken without an immediate application in mind. Applied research is research undertaken with an application in mind. Clinical research simply means that patients are involved. There is basic clinical research and there is applied clinical research There are journals that feature purely applied issues and these are often clinical. The fundamental difficulty these journals face is the inherent difficulty in doing applied research that is scientifically valid. Applied clinical issues are rife with variables that usually cannot be all standardized. Hence we needed more studies with concurrent outcomes before we can have reasonable agreement. Case in point—look at the volumes of work published on cigarette smoking before the preponderance of evidence established concurrence on the negative effects. For us, the consumers, it is often very difficult to sort out the ideas we should adopt from those that should not. Other journals are directed at very fundamental issues and they should usually supply state-of the-art science and credibility. However, very often you cannot see an application for the data produced. Their contribution is to develop ideas and building blocks for tomorrow’s application. They supply the solid basis for new developments and future applied information. Let’s look at the objectives of this journal. The Angle Orthodontist attempts to straddle a difficult position and bridge the gap between basic and applied research. Our first priority is to bring you articles that bridge this difficult area and supply good science that may ultimately lead to applied information. We recognize that all our articles do not have immediate clinical application, but we try to select those that seem to have some realistic possibility of leading to useful applications. There is little question that the quality of orthodontic literature is rapidly improving. Not that long ago orthodontic journals were not peer reviewed and most journals published material that had been presented at meetings. Today the measure is, ‘‘Does this article present a useful and scientifically valid contribution?’’ The peer review system isn’t perfect, but it is the best approach found thus far and far superior to the biases of a single editor. Journal content is now much better organized. An article needs to have a measurable specific objective. Why was this project undertaken? What is the goal? It is no longer indicated to simply investigate, to study or other such vague general objectives. The Conclusions need to address these specific goals and not be a simple summary of the Results. The Materials and Methods need to supply sufficient details that another worker could replicate the study if desired. The Results should be objective findings without any attempt at interpretations of the meaning or applications of the data. That last big step forward in this area was the call for statistical support for data. This is common today, but also misused. A well used example—A P-value does not prove a point in question; a P value only expresses the probability that it is true. Another example—a study may have good correlation coefficients, but correlations do not prove a cause and effect; only that two things often occur together. It is important to remember that science can only prove something false. To prove something false only requires finding one instance where the idea fails. This is the strength of the null hypothesis. To prove something true requires establishing its truth under any and all conceivable situations—a situation that is virtually impossible to create. What will an article contain to meet these goals? Clear measurable Objectives, a solid methodology, clean Results, a Discussion that related the Results to