JBMR's big tent

A founding principle of ASBMR is to provide a single forum where basic and clinical scientists can exchange the latest research findings in bone and mineral metabolism and promote the translation of this science into clinical practice. This “big tent” philosophy, a term used in political circles to bring together people with a broad variety of political ideologies, is reflected in the pages of the JBMR, where we publish the most meritorious papers on both clinical and basic topics. Because we serve both basic and clinical sciences, it is not surprising that ASMBR members query us from time to time about the balance between basic and clinical articles in the JBMR. Clinical scientists sometimes comment that the journal is too heavily focused on basic science, and basic scientists have opined that the journal is too heavily focused on clinical science. In view of these different perceptions, we decided to analyze our recent publication record in this regard. We are pleased to share with you this review that extends back to 2005, when the editorial office first began the current system of categorizing manuscripts in the Journal's electronic records. We need to start by defining what constitutes the basic and clinical categories. Since 2005, authors who submit manuscripts to the JBMR are required to designate the manuscript as basic, clinical, or translational. Clinical articles refer to results from clinical trials and from epidemiology and outcomes research—work that is within the editorial scope of purely clinical journals, such as the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism and Osteoporosis International. Basic papers are defined as “wet lab” studies in bone cells, bone proteins, and hormonal regulators—work that could be found in journals such as Endocrinology and the Journal of Biological Chemistry. The translational category was added in 2005 to describe research that moves basic work to clinical practice and comprises clinical science components with animals or human subjects. For example, a technique for measuring bone properties, although basic, would be categorized as translational because it has clear applicability to human subjects. Similarly, an analysis of an abnormal bone protein or receptor characteristic of a human disease also might be categorized as translational. There is, to us, more uncertainty in the translational category than either the basic or clinical category. Given these definitions, and with due regard to some inherent ambiguity, we surveyed manuscripts published over two time segments. From January 2005 through June 2008 under the previous editorial team, JBMR accepted 755 manuscripts, of which 321 (42.5%) were clinical, 256 (33.9%) were basic, and 178 (23.6%) were self-described as translational. From July 2008 through March of this year, under the current editorial team, the distribution of the 435 papers accepted was 46.7% clinical, 27.3% basic, and 26.0% translational. To reanalyze the translational papers published during our tenure, we arbitrarily designated those referred to the basic science Senior Associate Editor (XC) as “basic” and those referred to the clinical science Senior Associate Editor (JPB) as “clinical.” Using this algorithm, the balance becomes even more apparent. Of the 435 papers accepted by the current editorial team, 44% are basic and 56% are clinical. It should be noted that the slightly higher percentage for clinical manuscripts reflects the fact that we receive more clinical papers than basic submissions. Therefore, our analysis clearly indicates that the JBMR is continuing its mission to publish meritorious work in basic and clinical bone and mineral metabolism in a manner that is balanced and well represented. Several additional points are worth mentioning in the context of this discussion. The JBMR does not have different standards for evaluating basic, clinical, and translational papers. Nor do the editors encourage submissions of one type over the others—we have no quotas or fixed number of papers from any one category. Reviews and editorial decisions for the JBMR are made on a per-paper basis and entirely on merit. We do not evaluate a group of papers and decide, for example, that since we have accepted a certain number of clinical papers, we are limited to a smaller number of basic papers or vice versa. Instead, the editors are cognizant of our broader responsibilities to the ASBMR and the bone community, and we strive to maintain a big tent approach to the papers submitted to the Journal. We believe that this tradition is a key factor that has made the JBMR the premier journal in the bone and mineral field. You can be assured that your work will be evaluated on its merits and not on whether it happens to fall into one manuscript category or another. We look forward to continuing to receive your best work, however you choose to designate it!