Standard Peer Review Research Articles

Molecular Therapy's New Open-access Sibling

We are thrilled to announce the launch of MolecularTherapy—Nucleic Acids (MTNA), the second official journal of the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy (ASGCT) and the first of what we hope will be a series of online-only, open-access sibling journals serving both members and nonmembers alike of the ASGCT. We launched the Oligonucleotide Therapeutics section in Molecular Therapy (MT) in 2008 and have seen submissions grow strongly since then. In 2011, we published twice as many papers in this burgeoning field than just 3 years earlier. This impressive growth continues and the launch of MTNA thus provides an alternate venue for the ASGCT to publish more of the best of work in this field. At the same time, it ensures that we maintain a more generalist approach in MT so as to continue to provide balanced coverage of the diverse but overlapping fields that fall under the “molecular therapy” umbrella. Indeed, the concept of “targeted delivery” is front and center, whether we are discussing replacement cell therapy, gene therapy, or therapeutics based on gene silencing. We also envisage less of an emphasis on animal model data in MTNA (although we certainly welcome such submissions), and a greater emphasis on early-stage development of novel oligonucleotide-based strategies (whether vector-based or delivered via nanoparticle formulations) and the mechanisms that underlie them. In addition, MT has recently seen strong growth of submissions in the field of genome engineering using natural and synthetic nucleases, and we have deliberately decided to consider manuscripts in MTNA on this topic as well, owing to the potential impact of these new tools on the manipulation of gene expression and the development of gene-based therapies.

Renovating the History of the Korean Journal of Orthodontics

I'd like to share with our readers that this year's first issue of the Korean Journal of Orthodontics (KJO) will have several important changes in light of the journal's history. Most significantly, its publication policy has been updated to adopt a full English edition to encourage international circulation as of the beginning of 2012. As the official publication of the Korean Association of Orthodontists (KAO), KJO has a long history of serving the orthodontic community close and far. Since its first issue was printed in 1970, its publication frequency has increased from yearly to biennially in 1981, triennially in 1989, and then quarterly in 1992 all in Korean language. Beginning in 1995, the journal has been published bimonthly to include at least one full issue in English in a given year depending on the submission volume of manuscripts. My personal view is that, from that point on, a motion was set for internationalization of the journal to go beyond a regional scope. Later in 2008, KJO has been indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI), which has served as a platform to become a global orthodontic journal. Subsequently, the plans and executive decisions to promote the journal's international circulation have eventually materialized as an orthodontic scientific publication limited to the English language as of 2012. When it comes to the quality of the articles, I am delighted to inform you that KJO ranks highly among the orthodontic journals. The purpose of KJO is to introduce significant clinical and scientific original research papers by publication and dissemination. In attempt to control the quality of the contents of the journal, all manuscripts submitted to KJO are scrutinized under the standardized peer review system, followed by revisions according to discriminating expert reviewer panels, before final acceptance. Among the means to measure the quality of scholarly scientific journals, the 'impact factor,' which is the indicator of the likelihood of a journal's article to be cited, may be the most widely accepted instrument. According to the 2010 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) KJO was given the impact factor of 0.824 in 2011. The figure is encouraging, especially given the short track record of the journal since enlisted in SCIE, and I am confident that it is a positive reflection of the right direction where KJO is headed. As our readers know, KJO announced its open access policy in 2008. What it means is that now all articles of the journal are available for free with minimum legal and technical limitations. Further, unrestricted distribution and reproduction of the articles are protected under the license terms so long as it is non-commercial use and the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-nc/3.0/). I am certain that this wide window for access will aid in increasing the volume of global circulation of the journal, eventually elevating the number of citations received and the journal impact factors. Finally, I'd like to acknowledge that the Korean Association of Orthodontists has provided valuable financial support for the publication of KJO. KAO is a member-supported non-profit organization, which was founded in 1959 for the purpose of advancing scientific knowledge in the field and promoting open communications among orthodontists. Many of its members have been active in their research activities, contributing to the content of KJO and development of professional niche in regional scientific community. As an international orthodontic journal, now KJO invites them to embrace greater opportunities to communicate their visions and to continue the efforts to share their expertise with global scientific world.

The 14th International Symposium on Flow Visualization, ISFV14

The 14th International Symposium on Flow Visualization (ISFV14) was held in Daegu, Korea, on 21–24 June 2010. The number of participants was 304 from 17 countries. The state of arts in many aspects of flow visualization was presented and discussed, and the number of papers presented was 243 from 19 countries. Two special lectures and four invited lectures, 48 paper sessions, and one poster session were held in five session rooms and in a lobby for 4 days. Among 48 paper sessions, the sessions of ‘‘biological flows’’, ‘‘micro/nano fluidics’’, ‘‘PIV/PTV’’, ‘‘compressible and sonic flows’’ were receiving large attention from ISFV14 participants. Special events such as awarding ‘‘The Asanuma Award’’ and ‘‘The Leonardo Da Vinci Award’’ to the prominent contributors were endowed. Photo and movie awards were given to three scientists for their excellences in flow visualizations. Sixteen papers were selected by the Scientific Committee of ISFV14. After the standard peer review process of Journal of Visualization (JOV), 11 papers were finally accepted for publication. We wish to thank the editors and reviewers of JOV for making it possible to publish this special issue from ISFV14. We also thank to the authors for their careful and insightful work and cooperation in the preparation of revised papers. It will be our pleasure if readers appreciate the hot topics in flow visualization research as a result of this special issue. We also hope the progress in flow visualization will create new research fields. The 15th International Symposium on Flow Visualization will be held in Minsk, Belarus in 2012. We would like to express sincere thanks to the staff at Springer Verlag for their kind support.

Preface to ISIF 2009 Special Issue of Journal of Applied Physics: Science and Technology of Integrated Functionalities

The science and technology of ferroelectric thin films and their applications have attracted many researchers and experienced tremendous progress in the past 20 years. The recent worldwide increase in commercial applications of ferroelectric devices such as smart cards based on nonvolatile ferroelectric random access memories is a symbol of both the maturity and the acceptance of the technology. The 21st International Symposium on Integrated Ferroelectrics (ISIF 2009), held on September 22 to October 2, 2009 in Colorado Springs, CO, provided a forum for the academic and national laboratories research community and industry to present and share their new findings, achievements, and opinions on integrated ferroelectrics and their applications. The International Symposium on Integrated Ferroelectrics hosted the ISIF 2009. This was the first year where the ISIF held the conference in its new format under the name of International Symposium on Integrated Functionalities. The General Chairs of the ISIF in consultation with the Advisory Board and the ISIF community decided to revise the focus of the conference in order to broaden the scope to the science and technology of multifunctional materials and devices. This decision was taken in view that a new paradigm in materials, materials integration, and devices is emergingmore » with a view to the development of a new generation of micro- and nanoscale multifunctional devices. The program included three plenary presentations on diverse topics such as 'The Role of Nonvolatile Memory in Ubiquitous Computing,' 'Ferroelectrics and High Density Memory Technology,' 'Nanoscale Ferroelectrics and Interfaces: Size Effects,' four tutorial lectures on diverse topics, such as 'Magnetic Memory Applications,' 'Ferroelectrics and Ferroelectric Devices,' 'Challenges for High-K Dielectrics on High Mobility Channels,' 'Solar Cell Materials,' one poster session, and eight oral sessions. Thanks to the great efforts made by the ISIF organization committee and the session chairs, the conference successfully achieved its objectives and the work presented reflected very well the most recent advances of integrated ferroelectrics and their applications, as well as advances in other areas related to the new theme of Integrated Functionalities. Many aspects of ferroelectric, piezoelectric, high-K dielectric, magnetic, and phase change materials, including the science and technology of these materials in thin film form, integration with other thin film materials (metals or oxide electrodes), and fabrication of micro- and nanostructures based on these heterostructure layers, and device architecture and physics, were addressed from the experimental point of view. Work on theory and computer simulations of the mentioned materials and devices were discussed also with a view to the promising applications to multifunctional devices. In addition, the ISIF 2009 featured discussions of alternative nonvolatile memory concepts and materials, such as phase change memories, research on multiferroics and magnetoelectric materials, ferroelectric photovoltaics, and new directions on the science of perovskites such as biomolecular/polarizable interfaces, and bio-ferroelectric and other oxide interfaces. Following the standard submission and peer review process of Journal of Applied Physics, the selected papers presented in ISIF 2009 in Colorado Springs are published in this special issue. We believe that the papers in this special issue represent the forefront contributions to ISIF 2009 in the various areas of fundamental and applied science of integrated ferroelectrics and functionalities and their applications. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the following organizations and companies for their support and sponsorship for ISIF 2009, namely: Aixact Systems GMBH, Radiant Technologies, Symetrix Corporation, and Taylor and Francis Publishers. We would also like to thank the conference and session chairs, advisory and organizing committee members for their hard work that resulted in a very successful ISIF 2009, now in its new future-looking modality of Integrated Functionalities.« less

The Journal of Physiology Annual Report 2010

Throughout 2010, the editorial policy of The Journal of Physiology has focused on maintaining high and consistent standards of peer review of submitted research articles and providing readers with a range of informative reviews and commentaries by recognised experts. The Journal has continued to attract papers across all areas of physiology and to increase online readership. Initiatives to extend the reach of The Journal to readers outside the academic community, framed by our policy to promote the discipline of physiology more widely, have been successful, judged by downloading of content. The Journal's ISI metrics improved, indicating that our content has both immediate impact and an enduring quality.

Adding value to BJS

Scientific articles published in the Journal and on the website are central to BJS. Attracting and publishing high-quality papers are fundamental activities and remain the principal focus of the editorial team. Readers will notice a new cover for 2011 with a surgical illustration that will change every month. This image will usually be selected from articles published in BJS. We hope this will encourage authors to continue to submit high-quality illustrations with their papers that could be featured on the front cover. Reader surveys have suggested that BJS users are eager for more than just the science of surgery. Commentaries on selected articles, videos of surgical technique and podcasts are all recent additions to add value to the printed word. The Editors welcome feedback on these initiatives. The BJS website has also undergone a major upgrade. It remains a repository for the entire BJS archive, as well as giving easy access to the current edition ofBJS and future publications through Earlyview, together with direct access to theWiley Online Library. The BJS Clinical Library will contain additional online material, supplementary to papers published in the Journal, technical videos of methods described in submitted papers and the archive of Snapshots in Surgery. The taxonomy has been revised to make the Library more intuitive and searchable. In time, we hope that this becomes a useful educational resource, allowing material to be accessed for presentations and lectures. The Snapshots in Surgery will change during 2011, moving from simple pictures to an educational format with questions. If this is popular with the readership, we hope that this could become formally recognized as a contribution to the Continuing Professional Development of the surgeon. There will be further podcasts and videocasts summarizing papers published in BJS to put them in a wider context. Experimental research is the bedrock of the future of surgical practice, yet some experimental papers published in BJS are rarely cited, perhaps because their relevance to daily surgical practice is difficult to appreciate. The emphasis will, therefore, be on translational work where there is a reasonable prospect of clinical application or at least knowledge that might impact on surgical strategies in the near future. To give focus to these experimental papers, authors will be asked to put their research into clinical context using a box called ‘surgical relevance’ that will be published adjacent to the abstract on the front page of the manuscript. The length of experimental articles will also be restricted to encourage succinct and clear presentation. In an era of evidence-based medicine, BJS has championed metaanalyses, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. We continue to devote more space to these article types than other journals concerned with surgery in general. The Editors are conscious, however, that well constructed observational studies remain important and that ‘state-of-the-art’ reviews can be useful where an evidence base is weak, particularly in relation to the introduction and acceptance of novel techniques. It is planned to include a small number of ‘state-of-the-art’ papers in 2011. Another area to receive greater attention will be trauma. Many general surgeons are still responsible for the management of trauma and BJS is often asked to increase the number of articles on this subject. A 13th issue will therefore be published at the end of 2011, devoted to trauma from the perspective of the general surgeon. This will include invited articles and original papers (after standard peer review). Although the Journal has a distinguished past, the need to maintain the highest possible quality both in print and electronic formats demands progress and adaptation. BJS intends not only respond to many of the challenges in the arena of scientific publication but to be seen as a leader in innovation. The Editors welcome comment and suggestion to continue this process.

What Constitutes Best Practice in Healthcare Design?

Design practitioners who specialize in healthcare facilities are familiar with the term best practice as a result of its usage among their clients. In medicine and nursing, best practice is a familiar and accepted concept (Kenny, 2008). practice is a common term in education and other arenas, such as business, manufacturing, and software development. Although there is no single definition for best practice, the basic elements include practices based on the careful collection of relevant evidence, an action resulting in a positive outcome, and the ability to reproduce results. practice has much in common with evidence-based practice and is sometimes considered a synonym. Might there be a similar or analogous application for evidence-based architecture and engineering in healthcare facilities?Medical PracticeAn example from medicine is the development of clinical pathways as standards of practice in the form of protocols for treatment. Another example is the Cochrane Collaboration (www.cochrane.org), a nonprofit organization that exists for the purpose of providing critical reviews of evidence in medicine and healthcare (Bero & Rennie, 1995). Their model is to provide independent, expert evaluations of the quality of the best available evidence for a given topic and to publish thorough and systematic reviews.Rating the quality of evidence becomes a crucial issue. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group (www.gradeworkinggroup.org) points out the potential confusion associated with the multiple scales proposed for evaluating evidence. After examining the different evaluation scales available, GRADE chooses to classify evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. GRADE also offers a nine-point scale of importance based on outcomes (Guyatt et al., 2008). The top three points are considered critical for decision making, the middle three points are important but not critical to decisions, and the lower three points of the scale denote outcomes of less importance to patients and unimportant for decision making.In the case of the American College of Chest Physicians (Guyatt et al., 2006), recommendations or guidelines are classified as strong (1) or weak (2). The quality of the evidence supporting a recommendation is rated as high (A), moderate (B), or low (C). Thus a 1A recommendation is a strong recommendation based on evidence of high quality, and a 2C recommendation is a weak recommendation based on evidence of low quality.Nursing PracticeAs nursing turns toward an evidence-based practice model, its attention to best practice increases. Best practice refers to the clinical practices, treatments, and interventions that result in the best possible outcome for the patient and the health care facility providing those services (Munden & Lockhart, 2007, p.1). The American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) has revised its system of evidence levels (Armola et al., 2009). Level A now refers to meta-analysis of multiple controlled studies or metasynthesis of qualitative studies; Level B is for controlled studies that are well designed, randomized or not; Level C is a catchall for qualitative studies, descriptive or correlational studies, systematic reviews, and controlled trials with inconsistent results; Level D is for peerreviewed standards published by professional organizations; and Level E is for expert opinion based on theory or multiple case reports. Level M is reserved for the recommendations of manufacturers. In a recent editorial, Jaynelle Stichler (2010) proposed a numbered set of levels similar in content to the AACN levels that could be used by the readers of HERD to evaluate the evidence that appears in this journal. (See Table 1.)Although the trend toward evidence-based practice and the documentation of best practice is strong, some clinicians object. Some feel that their integrity, training, education, and experience are being ignored as clinical pathways overwhelm individual decisions. …

Teaching undergraduates the process of peer review: learning by doing

An active approach allowed undergraduates in Health Sciences to learn the dynamics of peer review at first hand. A four-stage process was used. In stage 1, students formed self-selected groups to explore specific issues. In stage 2, each group posted their interim reports online on a specific date. Each student read all the other reports and prepared detailed critiques. In stage 3, each report was discussed at sessions where the lead discussant was selected at random. All students participated in the peer review process. The written critiques were collated and returned to each group, who were asked to resubmit their revised reports within 2 wk. In stage 4, final submissions accompanied by rebuttals were graded. Student responses to a questionnaire were highly positive. They recognized the individual steps in the standard peer review, appreciated the complexities involved, and got a first-hand experience of some of the inherent variabilities involved. The absence of formal presentations and the opportunity to read each other's reports permitted them to study issues in greater depth.

Call for Papers: Special Issue of Earth, Planets and Space (EPS) “Comparative Studies of the Plasma at Non-magnetized Planets/Moons”

This special issue of EPS will be devoted to the theme of the 5th Alfven conference on plasma interactions with non- magnetized planets/moons and their influence on planetary evolution. During recent years many spacecraft missions have accumulated new observations at different unmagnetized planets and moons throughout the solar system (Venus Express, Mars Express, Mars Global Surveyor, Galileo for Jovian moons, Cassini for Saturnian moons, and Kaguya and Chandrayaan-1 for the Moon). While analysis of the spacecraft measurements are necessarily focused on individual bodies, there is a need to foster a critical comparison of recent measurements and simulations of plasma phenomena at unmagnetized objects throughout the solar system. Such comparison is essential in understanding the general physics behind the plasma environment in all the solar system objects, and is also essential for planning future missions. We seek contributions pertaining to the plasma interaction with unmagnetized planets and moons in the solar system: Venus, Mars, Moon, Titan, and similar bodies. Submissions are encouraged on new findings from the analysis of spacecraft data, recent progress in theory and modeling, evolution of weakly-magnetized planets and moons under an active Sun, and comparisons of similar phenomena from different planets and moons. All submitted papers will undergo a standard peer review process. Papers must be submitted to the EPS editorial office. Electronic submissions by e-mail to eps@terrapub.co.jp are encouraged, but authors who meet any difficulties with electronic

Bayesian methods in survival analysis

This special issue of Lifetime Data Analysis (LIDA) is comprised of papers on Bayesian methods in survival analysis. As Guest Co-Editors for the issue, we identified researchers doing interesting work in this area and invited them to submit papers. These submissions were then held to the journal’s usual high standards of peer-review. We feel that the seven papers constitute interesting advances across a broad range of topics. Two of the papers are accompanied by discussions from other researchers and a rejoinder from the authors. In the first of these, Timothy Hanson, Adam Branscum, and Wesley Johnson consider simultaneous Bayesian inference for survival times and covariate processes, i.e., joint ‘longitudinal-survival’ modeling. They use nonparametric Bayesian techniques, paying special attention to predictive criteria for model selection. Jeremy Taylor and Radu Craiu both contribute lively discussions on this article. The second discussed paper, by JosephG. Ibrahim,HongtuZhu, andNiansheng Tang, describes a comprehensive scheme to evaluate the influence of various components of a Bayesian survival model on the resulting inferences. Both Sanjib Basu and Paul Gustafson contribute discussions. Several themes cut across the papers in this issue. In addition to the aforementioned paper by Hanson et al., Huang, Li, Elashoff and Pan also consider Bayesian joint modeling of longitudinal and survival data. Cure-rate models also feature prominently. Chen, Kim, and Dey consider a model whereby a threshold structure on latent

2010: A Year of Transitions

This year marks the 33rd consecutive year that the Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine has served the SCI community. As it has many times in the past, the journal faces transitions that promise both challenge and opportunity. JSCM is now the official journal of the newly formed Academy of Spinal Cord Injury Professionals (ASCIP), which comprises 4 sections, each representing the former associations that served SCI physicians (APS), psychologists and social workers (AASCIPSW), nurses (AASCIN), and therapist (TLC). Announced by the Academy Governance Board in January, this official designation formalizes the input of the spectrum of SCI professionals to JSCM and strengthens the journal's position among publications in the field. With the help of the ASCIP Journal Task Force, the Editorial Board is expanding with new members who will seek optimal ways to serve the membership of ASCIP as well as the global community. Later this year, JSCM will incorporate the content of Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, (TSCIR), a review journal published quarterly by Thomas Land Publishers for the past 16 years. Each issue of TSCIR has focused on the thorough coverage of a timely topic related to an aspect of spinal cord injury, an editorial plan that complements the research articles, meeting abstracts and clinical content of JSCM. The multidisciplinary approach of TSCIR, its long history of in-depth topic development and its relationships with experts in SCI will further enhance the reach and influence of the journal. Through more than 3 decades, dedicated volunteers and staff have nurtured the journal, numerous authors have submitted their work, and reviewers have donated their time and talent to ensure optimal standards of peer review. None of this would have been possible without the generous financial sponsorship of Paralyzed Veterans of America and in decades past, United Spinal Association. Now is an appropriate time to trace JSCM's history through the numerous transitions that have contributed to its status as an acknowledged resource for professionals involved in improving the lives of people with SCI, whether through scientific research or clinical care (1). I think you'll agree that in many ways, the growth of the field of SCI medicine and rehabilitation is reflected in this journal's journey. I encourage each of you to be a part of its future.

Ten Years of ChemBioChem: Where Chemistry Meets Life Science

Ten Years of <i>ChemBioChem</i>: Where Chemistry Meets Life Science

Systematic Differences in Impact across Publication Tracks at PNAS

BackgroundCitation data can be used to evaluate the editorial policies and procedures of scientific journals. Here we investigate citation counts for the three different publication tracks of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). This analysis explores the consequences of differences in editor and referee selection, while controlling for the prestige of the journal in which the papers appear.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe find that papers authored and “Contributed” by NAS members (Track III) are on average cited less often than papers that are “Communicated” for others by NAS members (Track I) or submitted directly via the standard peer review process (Track II). However, we also find that the variance in the citation count of Contributed papers, and to a lesser extent Communicated papers, is larger than for direct submissions. Therefore when examining the 10% most-cited papers from each track, Contributed papers receive the most citations, followed by Communicated papers, while Direct submissions receive the least citations.Conclusion/SignificanceOur findings suggest that PNAS “Contributed” papers, in which NAS–member authors select their own reviewers, balance an overall lower impact with an increased probability of publishing exceptional papers. This analysis demonstrates that different editorial procedures are associated with different levels of impact, even within the same prominent journal, and raises interesting questions about the most appropriate metrics for judging an editorial policy's success.

The Future of Academic Publishing: Application of the Long-Tail Theory

Print academic journals are dead. As we watch large metropolitan newspapers fail (as are many small town newspapers), the same economic forces are driving online scholarly publishing. This phenomenon is more than print journals going online. The options available with new low-cost online publishing software and the rise in the ability to use ratings from user generated content suggest more near-term changes are likely. Many of the outcomes are unsettled: the economics of online publishing; the standards for peer review, rank, and tenure; and the very nature of scholarly publishing itself. What is certain, however, is that the economics of online academic publishing—modeled via Anderson’s Long Tail Theory—will make it possible to provide greater access, more collaboration, and, ultimately, improved research and researchers. Universities acting as publishing centers with their e-reserves will be expected to change their faculty evaluations, providing greater academic rewards for those who act as editors, reviewers, and proofreaders within this new born-online and only-online world.

The Use of Standards for Peer Review of Online Nursing Courses: A Pilot Study

This article describes a pilot study on the use of online course standards for peer review of Web-based nursing courses. A peer review team consisting of a nurse educator and an instructional designer piloted the use of two sets of online course standards in two RN-to-baccalaureate nursing courses. The College of Public Health Online Course Standards and the Quality Matters (QM) Peer Course Review Rubric were used to review the courses. The standards facilitated the peer review process and supplied important criteria for measuring the quality of the courses. Analysis of the rubric scores revealed trends in criteria not met in either course, indicating the need for educational program improvement and faculty training. The QM tool had more consistent results among peer reviewers and was perceived as easier to use. In addition, QM standards provided a useful mechanism for benchmarking against higher education courses throughout the United States.

Introduction

With this issue, I am truly honored to assume the challenging duties of the ninth editor of the journal as it enters its 40th year of publication. I am pleased to announce that Robert Haining is returning, joining Stewart Fotheringham and Mei-Po Kwan as an associate editor. The leadership of the eight preceding editors, from Leslie King to Alan Murray, together with their editorial boards and cadre of reviewers, has established and maintained a stellar interdisciplinary reputation of quality for the journal, one of only a handful of journals across all disciplines to earn a 2008 WU-Wien journal ranking of A+. In addition, because a journal is only as good as the caliber of its submissions, coupled with the standards of peer review to which these submissions are subjected, members of the analytical geography community deserve many thanks for contributing to the long-run success of the journal; the continued commitment of this community of scholars is essential to the ongoing success of Geographical Analysis. In keeping with its international focus, the journal has received support from researchers in many countries and continues to welcome papers from scholars in not only North America and Europe but also South America, Africa, Oceania, and Asia. Addressing what has been perceived by other prominent journals (e.g., Gálvez et al. 2000; Martin 2001; Yeung 2001) to be a publishing bias, several distinguished Asian scholars have accepted my invitation to join the editorial board, and the online version of Geographical Analysis will begin to include abstracts published in Chinese and Spanish, as well as in English. The goal here is to broaden the scope of scholars who use the journal as both an outlet for their research and a source for their citations. The phrase “theoretical geography” appears in the journal's subtitle. Narrowly speaking, pure spatial theory involves general principles linked to ideal assumptions through logic and renders a concise systematic view of some geographic phenomenon that ultimately allows its explanation and/or prediction. In contrast, the journal's view is more catholic: although theory means more than merely abstract thought, it transcends mathematical and statistical characterizations of geographic phenomena and includes spatial optimization and innovative spatial analytical methodology, as well as the uncovering of empirical regularities that achieve a sufficient degree of generality and, when systematically joined together, can yield conceptual frameworks. In other words, theoretical geography refers to the formulation, model specification, articulation, formalization, and testing of spatial theory across a wide range of thematic areas, whether it be inductive or deductive in nature. As editor, my commitment is to maintain and, when possible, improve upon, the high quality of innovative scholarship about both human and physical topics that is published in the journal, as well as to maintain its well-earned reputation as a flagship journal for analytical geography. I seek to continue the tradition that a paper appearing in Geographical Analysis constitutes a prestigious contribution to the scientific literature. I also intend to continue the practice, when possible, of supplementing major research pieces with research notes and comments, publishing comprehensive overviews that furnish invaluable retrospection and producing special issues. To this latter end, a special issue will appear later this year to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the seminal paper by Cliff and Ord (1969) that set the stage for their classic book and spawned the spatial autocorrelation revolution; another special issue will appear in 2010 to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Alan Wilson's 1970 book Entropy in Urban and Regional Modelling. I also am negotiating an experimental collaboration with a cognate field journal whose purpose is to create cross-exposure of the two journals by coordinating a pair of issues, one from each. My initial efforts here focus on graph theory and the “new network science,” a project in collaboration with Sandra and William Arlinghaus. We intend to feature a previously unpublished, posthumous manuscript by the late Frank Harary. In closing, I thank the Executive Committee for its confidence in me and for giving me this opportunity to serve Geographical Analysis as editor. I extend thanks to the members of an exceptional editorial board who have agreed to serve on it for at least 3 years, the tenure of my initial appointment. I also welcome Yongwan Chun as my assistant editor and Kay Steinmetz as my principal copyeditor. New submissions can be sent to geographical_analysis@utdallas.edu.

American Council of Learned Societies

Many members of the American Political Science Association are probably not aware of the work of the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS). Founded in 1919 as a coalition of the professional societies that represents the diverse disciplines in the academic humanities, the ACLS now engages in a wide range of activities—offering generous grants and fellowships to scholars in humanistic disciplines; advocating for the strengthening of faculties in the disciplines; working with both government and private foundations to provide access to great works in the humanities, resources for departments, colleges, and universities; and facilitating efforts to define and preserve standards for peer review and quality research.

The Delphi Method: An Approach for Facilitating Evidence Based Practice in Athletic Training

Objective: The growing importance of evidence based practice in athletic training is necessitating academics and clinicians to be able to make judgments about the quality or lack of the body of research evidence and peer-reviewed standards pertaining to clinical questions. To assist in the judgment process, consensus methods, namely brainstorming, nominal group technique and the Delphi method can be used. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature related to the Delphi Method and its potential implications for evidence-based practice and peer-reviewed standards in athletic training. Data Sources: We searched PubMed and MEDLINE (1978–2007), CINAHL (1993–2006), Dissertation Abstracts (1979–2006) and Google Scholar (1983–2007) using the terms “Delphi method,” “modified Delphi technique,” “consensus methods,” “Delphi technique,” and combined search terms of “Delphi method AND allied health, AND medicine AND dentistry, AND nursing. Data Synthesis: Textual support for the use of the Delphi Method in athletic training and a brief review of the literature pertaining to the: objectives; advantages; limitations commonly associated with the use of the Delphi Method; and research protocol. Conclusions/Recommendations: The Delphi Method in athletic training has been used to fulfill two objectives; the need for evidence based practice and the need to establish policies and procedures when none are in existence or it is difficult for one individual to make a decision. The Delphi Method and other consensus development methods should not be viewed as a scientific method for creating new knowledge, but rather as processes for making the best use of available information, be that scientific data or the collective wisdom of participants.

Variations on Sun’s role in climate change

Publication of the recent Opinion piece by Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West struck me as potentially blurring the distinction between a peer-reviewed journal article and an opinion piece. Presumably, opinion pieces are held to a dramatically lower standard than journal articles are in terms of peer review, burden of proof, and weight of scientific evidence. Yet publishing something dubbed “opinion” that contains scientific declarations of fact or scientific assertions effectively blurs the crucial distinction between opinions and peer-reviewed research articles. Physics Today’s audience seems to have a broad focus and therefore to be less likely to evaluate the substance of the scientific claims raised in that or similar pieces.As has been noted in journalism circles, from the perspective of the public and no doubt elements of the science community as well, “the distinction between reporting and commentary has seriously eroded.” 1 1. Project for Excellence in Journalism, The State of the News Media 2004: An Annual Report on American Journalism, http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2004/journalist_survey_prc1.asp. The same may well be true for scientific journals; distinctions between opinions and research articles are largely meaningless to those outside science, and that blurring may misinform public perceptions.The net effect is that the scientific community is more or less obligated to respond to scientific claims made in opinion pieces just as if they had met the standards of scholarly peer review. The burden of proof then switches from those making claims to the science community at large for disproving each and every such claim.I urge the editors of professional science journals, including Physics Today, to revisit their policies and procedures regarding what constitutes an article versus an opinion. Such distinctions are not without consequence.REFERENCESection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCE <<1. Project for Excellence in Journalism, The State of the News Media 2004: An Annual Report on American Journalism, http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2004/journalist_survey_prc1.asp. Google Scholar© 2008 American Institute of Physics.

Death after Bowel Resection: Patient Disease, Not Surgeon Error

IntroductionAlthough bowel resection is associated with a significant mortality rate, little is known about the demographics of the patients and how often surgical error is the primary cause of death. We sought to use a rigorous prospective quality database incorporating standardized peer review, to define how often patients die from provider-related causes. Materials and MethodsAll patients undergoing bowel resection with anastomosis at a university hospital from July 2003 to June 2006 were entered into a prospectively maintained quality database. Patients were seen daily with house staff by a specially trained nurse practitioner who recorded demographics and complications. Clinical case reviews were conducted monthly. Five hundred sixty-six patients underwent bowel resection with anastomosis during the study period. DiscussionOne hundred ninety-three patients suffered at least one complication (34.1%) and there were 20 deaths (3.5%). In 17 cases, death was deemed unavoidable due to patient disease; most occurred in patients who developed ischemic bowel while hospitalized for a serious concomitant illness. In only one case did death appear clearly related to a surgical complication (0.17%). Death after bowel resection typically reflects the need for urgent surgery in extreme circumstances and not surgeon error. Postoperative mortality rate in this population appears to be poor indicator of surgical quality.