J. Orthod.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 34, No. 3, 153-, September 2007 doi:10.1179/146531207225022203
© 2007 British Orthodontic Society

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Luther, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Luther, F.

Editorial

With great pleasure: a prize for best scientific paper, and finding out what readers think

Friedy Luther, Editor-in-Chief

Earlier this year, a new prize was announced for the best scientific paper published in the Journal of Orthodontics. It is called the Journal of Orthodontics Scientific Paper of the Year, sponsored by Maney Publishing. All scientific papers published in the Journal between issues 33(2) and 34(1), inclusive, were judged by the Editorial Board, and the prize of £750 will be awarded for the first time at the British Orthodontic Conference, September 2007 in Harrogate.

Papers were judged on their importance to Orthodontics, their scientific quality, their presentation/readability and their potential to change practice. It certainly does give me great pleasure to announce the first paper to win the new prize. It is:

P. E. Benson, C. W. I. Douglas. Decontamination of orthodontic bands following size determination and cleaning. J Orthod 2007; 34(1): 18–24.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

We hope that a worthy winner will be found each year. It is certainly time that the authors helping to supply the evidence (that we all need) are given some kind of reward for their very significant efforts. Many papers are published simply because they can be, or maybe for CV reasons or perhaps even (in some cases) simply because the author is famous. The best papers, however, are published for more important reasons, and surely deserve the chance to be highlighted above the rest. Hopefully this prize will help do that and inspire others to produce work with an excellent scientific basis, that answers an important question in a clear way and that directly impacts the work of orthodontists in the clinic, in the laboratory, or both. The papers published in the Journal are already subject to a rigorous refereeing process but this prize is a further peer-review step in the interests of enhancing scientific and clinical endeavour. More will be said about the award-winning papers in the next Editorial.

As well as something for authors, I am also very pleased to alert readers to our new Readership Survey. This can be found at: http://www.bos.org.uk/publicationslinks/journaloforthodonticsreadershipsurvey.htm. It will take about three minutes to complete and yes, we do want to find out what you think of the Journal: what you like about it or do not like; how it can be improved, and so on. Feedback is vital if we are to understand what we might be missing so do please tell us what you think. Really.

Stop press

we have just been informed that, for the second year running, a paper published in the Journal has been awarded the prestigious FEO (European Federation of Orthodontics) prize. The winning paper is N. Manning, S. M. Chadwick, D. Plunkett, T. V. Macfarlane. A randomized clinical trial comparing ‘onestep’ ‘two-step’ orthodontic bonding systems. J Orthod 2006; 33(4): 276–83.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

The whole Editorial Board would like to congratulate the authors on this tremendous achievement. The award recognizes a scientific paper that has made a significant contribution in research and clinical investigation, and that has advanced orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics. This study carried out a randomized controlled clinical trial to compare the standard two-stage etch and bond technique with a new, one-stage self-etch primer. This approach utilizes the ‘gold standard’ of evidence-based, clinical research. Before this study was undertaken, clinicians would probably have opted to use self-etch primers based on manufacturers’ claims, cost or word of mouth. Now clinicians will know that this specific type of self-etch primer can reasonably be used in their patients. This is actual, evidence-based decision making directly impacting patient care.





This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Luther, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Luther, F.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS