Research

Bone & Joint has driven forward a radical programme of expansion of the scope of the online and print media available to the orthopaedic community. We, the users, should now help refine the Journals to best serve our needs.

From a well-established base our Journal has broadened its horizons, relaunching itself under Bone & Joint, with a new look website and a variety of resources grouped in new and interesting ways. The inclusion of two new Journals – Bone & Joint ³⁶⁰ and Bone & Joint Research is novel and in my opinion welcome.

Bone & Joint ³⁶⁰ fills a niche. Its role, its USP, is the aggregation of the most informative research available in an easily and quickly digestable format. JBJS (Br) is published in print format and falls onto the doormat of most of our colleagues, certainly those in the UK. This is in itself an important factor in attracting aspiring authors. The Journal remains committed to publishing content relevant to clinical research and clinical practice. Bone & Joint Research describes an interest in translational or basic science studies as well those from clinical groups. I understand that the British Orthopaedic Research Society has welcomed the Journal with open arms. Bone & Joint Research provides several important advantages to the researcher to reduce bias. These include the publication of protocols, free access and online publication with the capacity to publish entire raw datasets. Meanwhile it retains a strong connection to clinical orthopaedic surgeons through its editorial committee.

So where to publish now? It seems to me that there will be some degree of overlap between these Journals in the publication of clinical research. The wealth of important retrospective and registry studies, upon which much of our practice has been based, already have an established place in the JBJS (Br). But where is the natural home within Bone & Joint for interventional clinical research? In my opinion the advantages of Bone & Joint Research make this the preferred choice in the future for large prospective or controlled studies.

I congratulate the pioneers within Bone & Joint for making these changes; voices supporting the status quo are often loud. Ultimately, the specific answers are not important. I am sure that each of the Journals under the new umbrella of Bone & Joint will find their own way – ultimately each can only publish manuscripts that they receive.

Mr Xavier Griffin, Walport Academic Fellow, Specialist Registrar, Warwick Orthopaedics, UK