| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
Critical Review
1 Department of Periodontics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, TX, alvares{at}uthscsa.edu; and Historically speaking, Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine was launched in 1990 by CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, as a quarterly journal. In 1994, it was sold to Begell House, Inc., NY, and a year later, thanks largely to the initiative of the then-IADR/AADR Executive Director, John Clarkson, it was purchased by the IADR, where it has stayed to this date, with the continuing support of former Executive Director Eli Schwarz and current Executive Director Christopher Fox. Olav Alvares has served as the Editor throughout this period, and he was blessed with the good fortune of a superb Editorial Advisory Board. For eight of the last ten years, ISI has ranked CROBM second for Scientific Impact among over 40 of the best-known journals in dentistry world-wide. Much, if not all, of this success is due to the authors who contributed to the journal and the several hundred individuals in the scientific community who were involved in the peer review process. They gave of themselves willingly, tirelessly, and without reservation. One would be remiss if one did not express immense gratitude to IADR Director of Publications Linda Hemphill and her very capable staff for all of their support. Without all of these aforementioned individuals, it would truly have been a case of sine qua non. But now the time has come to move on graciously. This issue of the Journal of Dental Research heralds a very significant step in its history as we see the incorporation of content from Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine. Both the JDR and CROBM hold prominent positions among dental scientific publications, ranking first and second, respectively, in Impact Factor. More importantly, they provide access for the dental community to the cutting edge of new dental research and its critical review by leaders in the field. This position will remain unchanged, and the content of both journals can now be accessed from one source. Olav Alvares will remain as Critical Reviews Editor for the new section of the Journal. With this exciting development, it is timely to reflect on the part played by the critical review process in our assimilation of scientific research. Peer review is at the very foundation of the publication of scientific research. It helps to determine the significance, evidence, presentation, scholarship, reasoning, theory, and ethics of research submitted for publication. Most researchers are passionate about their subject, and their participation in the peer review process is generally a means of assessing, in a robust manner, the validity and contribution of a submitted manuscript. The criteria used to arrive at this assessment will reflect both the quality of the contribution to research in the field and the standing of the journal. All journals strive to publish research with the greatest impact and the most definitive view of the topic under consideration. However, those journals at the top of the rankings are better-placed to set their targets high and publish only the most definitive research. In the case of the JDR, we seek novel and definitive original research reports showing causal relationships in experimental studies and explanatory/associative relationships in more observational studies, thereby allowing the reader to adopt a pivotal stance on a topic. Nevertheless, the very nature of the peer review process for any journal dictates a degree of subjectivity in the decision on whether a manuscript should be published. Ultimately, it is therefore important that the reader determine, in his/her own mind, the place that a particular research report should have in the wider context of a particular field. While experienced readers feel capable of making this judgment in their own field, they need an up-to-date overview of other fields, and younger, less experienced, researchers are often still developing the necessary skills of critical appraisal in most fields. There is thus considerable scope for experts in the field to review a particular topic and provide a well-balanced overview for others. This approach of reviewing the published work of others has long existed and is part of the wider peer review of a subject area. It may range from a simple descriptive listing of the publications on a topic to an in-depth critical appraisal of the contributions made to elucidation of that topic. This latter perspective is the niche that CROBM has filled so valuably. The emphasis on critical review is an important one. It is through expert consideration of the available evidence that the true perspective of the state of knowledge in a field can be judged, and this appraisal can be invaluable to other researchers in their scholarship, whether for educational, research, or clinical purposes. Furthermore, with the escalation in the volume of published literature, it is these critical reviews that allow us to keep abreast of the wider advances in knowledge. Peer review remains one of our strongest approaches to the assessment of the scientific validity and standing of research, whether at the level of the individual research report or as an overview of a field or topic. A critical element to this assessment is imperative for it to be constructive and robust. These review processes will underpin the newly expanded Journal and ensure that readers have access to a cutting-edge view of the best in dental research.
Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 84, No. 1,
8 (2005)
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
