Editorial

Centuries of scientific enquiry have produced improved preventive and therapeutic interventions through basic and clinical research. The history of modern medicine appears to be the story of the never-ending struggle of physicians to apply the newest scientific medical wonders to the care of their patients. Discussions of p values, clinical trials, and statistical methodology are currently common in the halls of medicine. Journals such as Current Respiratory Medicine Reviews have an enormous responsibility when publishing either new data or literature reviews to ensure proper dissemination of scientific information. Systematic literature reviews help to improve patient care since pooling of appropriate data sometimes enables us to see the results without the noise of the random play of chance. However, we must be careful in our choice of reviews. Some editors say that their role and responsibility is no different in covering health information than it is in covering politics, business, or any other topic. I assert that it isn't sufficient to be accurate and clear when writing a scientific manuscript. Authors have a responsibility to mirror a society's needs and issues, comprehensively and proportionally. As I assume the role of Editorin- Chief of Current Respiratory Medicine Reviews, I will carry out the responsibilities expected of an Editor-in-Chief, as noted by the World Association of Medical Editors [1]. One of my goals is to provide readers of Current Respiratory Medicine Reviews with scholarly publications that are useful to clinicians and basic scientists. In addition, I want to meet the needs and interests of our readers. For that reason, I have added members to the editorial board with specific expertise in areas that are considered of extreme importance for anyone engaged in the care of patients with pulmonary and chest disorders. I thank the current ad hoc reviewers for their prompt reviews. However, as many editors of brand new journals can attest, you start with no papers and suddenly you have too many. The information contained within Current Respiratory Medicine Reviews needs to be up-to-date and useful. Clearly, with a continuous healthy flow of good quality papers we should be able to meet that challenge. I welcome suggestions for interesting topics both at the clinical and basic level ([email protected]). In order for the success and stature of Current Respiratory Medicine Review to be elevated to the highest level, we must continuously strive to earn the trust of readers, authors and researchers. In our current era of entanglement, authors and members of the editorial board must investigate and report the possible conflicts of interest among sources of health information and those who promote a new idea or therapy. Such conflicts may not be readily apparent to some of us. Therefore, authors and members of the editorial board must investigate and report the possible links between researchers and private companies, public institutions, patient advocacy groups, celebrity spokespersons, and professional organizations. To fail to do so may mean that both authors and editors become unwitting mouthpieces for incomplete, biased, and imbalanced information. I will strive to make Current Respiratory Medicine Reviews as a leader in its field during my tenure as Editor-in-Chief. REFERENCE [1] The World Association of Medical Editors. A syllabus for prospective and newly appointed editors. Available at: http://www.wame.org/syllabus.htm. Accessed October 1, 2005.