Abstract
After 6 months as Editor-in-Chief of
Another change is having all submitted revisions now go back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation. Upon review of the revised manuscript, the reviewers can then accept as is or request further revisions. Sometimes, a reviewer might feel that their initial concerns were not addressed and that the same issues need to be further clarified, or they may feel that their initial concerns were addressed but the revised manuscript now raises other issues. While this change increases the workload of reviewers and authors, as well as lengthens the overall time to publication from initial submission, it is the heart of the peer-review process and essential to assuring the quality of the publication. In order to try to minimize the delays, we do strive to complete each review cycle in 30 days or less. I greatly appreciate the willingness of the reviewers to incorporate these additional steps to the peer-review process.
Another change that will be evident over the coming months is a further emphasis on the clinical nature of our journal. I strongly encourage all of you with interesting surgical techniques to submit these as clinical tips or full-fledged surgical techniques. As this is a journal primarily for the orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeon, we are always interested in clinically relevant topics.
We will likely be publishing fewer case reports, as a case report should present a new diagnostic entity or therapeutic modality. Cases which are unusual but have been previously described in the literature with no new diagnostic modality or treatment methodology will likely not be accepted since they are not going to change our clinical practice.