Search

A method for the synthesis of pyridine derivativesbased on a triple cascade reaction catalyzed by chiral secondaryamines was developed. The resulting cyclohexenes (three C–C bonds were formed) were obtained in good yields with good diastereoselectivities and excellent enantioselectivities.

Contributing reviewers The Editors of Journal of Foot and Ankle Research would like to thank all our reviewers who have contributed to the journal in Volume 7 (2014).

Qualitative analysis of shoe wear patterns collected from a questionnaire evaluating podiatric physicians’ experiences in this area suggests that wear patterns could indicate causative function within a known pathologic context. Several different functions are suggested by patterns associated with each of the pathologic entities involved, and analysis of the relationship between patterns and reasons given by respondents for pattern-form variations show the strongest associations to be with functionally termed conditions. A basic model is proposed to present factors important in wear pattern production, suggesting that a new concept of primary walking intention is more influential than foot pathologies in wear pattern formation and that external factors are also influential, with the combined factors being described as the “holistic foot function.” This model may provide a variety of benefits to podiatric medicine; as shoe wear patterns are records of the usual long-term activity of the functioning foot, this paradigm could form a basis for podiatric medical practice. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 94(3): 261–268, 2004)

Health research published in journals provides an ever-increasing number of studies and trials that espouse the benefits of all sorts of interventions. But how do consumers of research, for example the readers of Journal of Foot and Ankle Research (JFAR), know whether to believe the findings of research articles that they read? Clearly, health journals have an unambiguous responsibility to support good quality research that provides believable findings. Equally, they also have a responsibility to filter out poor quality research that provides findings that are not believable. JFAR steadfastly supports good quality research and the editorial team (with the assistance of the peer-reviewers) work conscientiously to publish only those studies that are of the highest quality; that is, studies with believable findings. While this is not always easy, and the goal posts that define quality of research are constantly being repositioned, the editors strive to bring the readers of JFAR the best foot and ankle research. Unfortunately, not all studies use perfect methods, so if a study does have limitations and is published, then the editors are careful to ensure that the authors clearly acknowledge the limitations in their articles, affording readers an insight into the pitfalls of the study. To assist the editors in this task, there is a burgeoning array of guidelines and recommendations for the conduct and reporting of different study designs. For example, there are the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement [1] and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement [2]. Each guideline has been developed to ensure that important aspects of a trial or review are reported by the authors. To assist in this process, there is a checklist for each item in the guideline, which covers key aspects of a study (e.g. blinding, sample size determination and statistical analysis) that authors should report to ensure that they have included essential pieces of information, which ultimately makes the study’s findings more believable. That is, it prevents authors from deceiving the reader, by concealing that they did not do something they should have, or equally bad, done something that they should not have. As an added bonus to readers of such articles, if guidelines like CONSORT and PRISMA are followed they invariably make an article less ambiguous and much easier to understand what has occurred in the study. The developers of such guidelines are experts, with most having decades of highly active experience researching and practicing these study designs. They are also generous individuals that have provided the guidelines in consumer friendly packages that are freely available. Potential users of these guidelines can easily access them through the well-developed CONSORT [3] and PRISMA [4] websites. Further to the guidelines mentioned above, there are many others for different study designs, for example; the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) [5] and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement [6,7]. Authors are recommended to consult these where appropriate and an excellent resource when writing manuscripts is that of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network [8], which is a virtual one-stop shop for guidelines that are relevant to publishing in health science journals. The EQUATOR Network includes guidelines for both quantitative and qualitative research. JFAR, as a BioMed central journal, adheres to these guidelines and authors of studies that use these study designs are obliged to include such checklists upon submission of their article. Few foot and ankle journals ensure this or even worse, do not even recommend this. However, JFAR is setting the benchmark in this area because the editors believe that it leads to the highest possible quality research articles for its readers, and consequently the most believable findings will be presented in JFAR. Furthermore, if clinical trials – where participants receive an intervention that is evaluated – are considered in more detail, JFAR also demands that authors must register their trial with a recognised clinical trial registry. Ideally, clinical trials should be registered prior to recruitment. Up to now, JFAR has accepted clinical trials that have been registered with a recognised clinical trial registry after the first participant has been recruited. However, from now on, JFAR will only accept clinical trials that are registered prior to recruitment. Why is this important? To begin with, it means that all clinical trials can be tracked and the results of clinical trials are less likely to be not published, which occurs more frequently in ‘non-significant trials’ (where no difference is detected between interventions). However, an equally important reason is that it prevents investigators changing their protocol or analysis in light of their findings if they unwisely assess the results prior to the completion of the trial, or once they have evaluated the results but before publication (often referred to as over-analysing the data or “cherry-picking” the results, which results in bias). By default, this means that investigators have to commit to their protocol and analysis, thus keeping them honest, which again leads to more believable findings. There are many recognised clinical trial registries and a list of recommended registries can be found on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors website (http://www.icmje.org/publishing_j.html). With all of this information in mind, two key points need to be considered. Firstly, consumers of articles that are published in JFAR should be assured that they are reading articles that present findings from high quality research. Secondly, potential authors of research manuscripts being submitted to JFAR need to adhere to the standards set by the journal; that is, they must read the guidelines for authors and carefully follow them when preparing their manuscripts. The journal’s guidelines are clear (http://www.jfootankleres.com/authors/instructions/research) and it is now, more than ever, not acceptable for authors to plead ignorance. As the impact of JFAR continues to increase, the editors are receiving more and more manuscripts to be considered for publication. This allows the editors more freedom to choose only the best quality research articles. If a manuscript is poorly written at the outset – for example, it has not adhered to the journal’s guidelines – then it has a much greater chance of rejection. Currently, JFAR rejects over 40% of the manuscripts submitted to it, and this figure is rising as the journal becomes more popular. For the best health journals in the world, such as New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet, this figure is about 95%. This means that they only publish the highest quality research. While there are exceptions, this research will generally be the most believable and will have the most impact. In conclusion, the editors of JFAR work hard to ensure that they provide a vehicle for the best quality foot and ankle research. While a small number of mistakes will undoubtedly be made and errors detected only after publication, readers can be assured that JFAR is trying to set the highest standards possible to foster a culture of believable research. We trust that readers of the journal can appreciate that such standards lead to better, more believable information for them. Some may view this as being elitist or exclusive, but if this is the price for believable research findings then that is a label the editors are prepared to wear. Conducting good research is not easy, and clear evidence can sometimes take years to compile (take the evidence for the ill-effects of tobacco smoking as a perfect example). Journals that follow an easy formula, where there are few checks and balances, ultimately provide a ‘fast food’ approach to health information – it may look fabulous and satiate ones appetite for knowledge easily, but it is not good for anyone in the long term. Professional journals have a responsibility to ensure that statements made in manuscripts can be supported by the study findings (i.e. good-quality evidence). This responsibility should not be viewed as being elitist or exclusive and in no way suppresses freedom of expression. Indeed, the fundamental premise of scientific publication is the reporting of empirically verifiable facts, which means believable information.

Contributing reviewers The Editors of Journal of Foot and Ankle Research would like to thank all our reviewers who have contributed to the journal in Volume 5 (2012).

"“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind”" Lord Kelvin, 1883 [1]. Science is all about quantification. It is therefore somewhat ironic that the mechanism by which science is disseminated – academic publishing – has yet to develop an acceptable way of measuring itself. Several fundamental issues regarding the scholarly publishing enterprise remain largely unresolved, such as how journal performance should be assessed, how journals should be compared and ranked, and how the impact of individual manuscripts should be evaluated. These issues are of relevance not only to journal editors and publishers, but also to librarians, who need to decide which journals to purchase, to researchers, who need to decide which journals to select for submission to, and to clinicians, who need to decide which journals they should read. By far the most widely used measure of journal performance is the Impact Factor, first developed by Eugene Garfield in 1955 as a means of selecting which journals to include in the Science Citations Index[2-4]. The Impact Factor represents the average number of citations received per paper published in that journal during the two preceding years. For example, the Impact Factor of a journal in 2011 is calculated as follows: A = the number of times articles published in 2009 and 2010 were cited by indexed journals during 2011. B = the total number of "citable items" published by that journal in 2009 and 2010. ("citable items" include articles, reviews or proceedings and excludes editorials and letters). 2011 Impact Factor = A/B. Due largely to its simplicity, the Impact Factor has been widely adopted as a measure of journal “prestige”, and many researchers consider the Impact Factor when selecting a journal to which to submit their work. Impact Factors have also been used to assess the output of researchers seeking academic promotion [5] and to guide research resource allocation [6], although these broader applications of the Impact Factor in isolation are not recommended by Thomson Reuters, the company that owns the Impact Factor and publishes journal rankings through the Journal Citation Reports database [7]. Several valid criticisms have been made of the Impact Factor. These criticisms relate primarily to: (i) the questionable assumption that citation rates are a valid measure of research impact or quality, (ii) the entirely arbitrary (and for some disciplines, very short) window of two years in which citations to a manuscript “count” toward the Impact Factor calculation, (iii) the skewed distribution of manuscript citations within a journal (i.e. very highly cited papers make a disproportionate contribution to a journal’s Impact Factor), and (iv) limitations in the coverage of journals in the Thomson ISI database, which has an English-language and US bias [8-11]. There is also evidence of editors intentionally manipulating journal content to achieve a higher Impact Factor by instructing authors to cite more papers within the journal, and by publishing review papers and commentaries with high levels of self-citation [12-14]. Despite these significant limitations, it would appear that the Impact Factor will continue to play a role in journal rankings until a more appropriate metric takes its place, therefore it would be disingenuous of the editorial team at JFAR to suggest that the publication of our first Impact Factor is not of considerable interest to us. JFAR was formally accepted for tracking by Thomson ISI on November 18, 2011, and our first Impact Factor was therefore calculated from 2009–2011 data. In 2009–2010, JFAR published 66 manuscripts, which attracted 88 citations in 2011. Therefore, our first Impact Factor is 88/66 = 1.333. In other words, on average, each manuscript published in JFAR in 2009–2010 attracted an average of 1.333 citations in 2011. The obvious question that arises from this is whether 1.333 is a “good” Impact Factor, however the answer to this question depends largely on the frame of reference. Our journal is clearly not going to give the New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor = 53.298) a run for its money. However, relative to our competitors, JFAR’s Impact Factor compares extremely well. Of the 14 English-language journals specifically focused on foot and ankle research, only five are tracked by Thomson ISI (see Table 1), and JFAR’s Impact Factor is the highest in this group of journals. In a broader context, JFAR is listed under Thomson ISI’s Orthopaedics category, and is ranked 32nd out of the 63 journals in this discipline. Table 1 2011 Impact Factors of English language foot-specific journals Although the Impact Factor is the most well-known journal performance metric, an alternative, freely accessible journal ranking known as the SCImago Journal Rank has recently been developed by the technology company SCImago Lab [15]. The SCImago Journal Rank uses Elsevier’s more extensive SCOPUS database rather than Thomson ISI’s Web of Science, and uses a more complex algorithm similar to Google’s PageRank which accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where the citations came from. The SCImago Journal Rank shares many of the limitations of the Impact Factor, however its developers argue that it is a more accurate reflection of a journal’s prestige due to: (i) the broader journal coverage of the SCOPUS database, (ii) a wider citation “window” of three years, (iii) a correction factor to prevent excessive self-citation (the proportion of self-citations is restricted to 33% of the total), and (iv) consideration of the “quality” of citations [16]. Of the 14 English-language journals specifically focused on foot and ankle research, ten are tracked by SCOPUS and therefore have a SCImago Journal Rank (see Table 2). Since 2009 when SCOPUS tracking commenced, JFAR’s SCImago Journal Rank has consistently been the highest in this group of journals (see Figure 1), and it is currently ranked 29th out of the 143 journals listed in the Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine category [17]. Table 2 2011 SCImago Journal Rankings of English-language foot-specific journals Figure 1 SCImago Journal Rankings of English language foot-specific journals, 1999–2011. Notwithstanding our concerns regarding the validity of both the Impact Factor and SCImago Journal Rank as measures of journal prestige, the editors of JFAR are very satisfied with the journal’s initial rankings, particularly given that we only commenced publication in July 2008. The publication of our Impact Factor and SCImago Journal Rank will undoubtedly influence the journal selection process of researchers in our discipline, so it is likely that the overall number of submissions to JFAR will increase in future years. However, rather than agonising over ubiquitous yet flawed journal performance metrics, we will continue to make editorial decisions based on the relevance and scientific quality of individual manuscripts, keeping in mind the (frequently cited) words of Nobel prize winning biologist Sydney Brenner: “Before we develop a pseudoscience of citation analysis, we should remind ourselves that what matters absolutely is the scientific content of a paper and that nothing will substitute for either knowing it or reading it” [18].

Recent events in the USA and UK have raised questions about the appropriate definition and application of the terms 'foot' and 'surgeon'. In this editorial, we explore these issues and clarify our use of these terms in the journal. © 2010 Menz et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

The British Council Connect initiative was set up to support strategic alliances and partnerships, promoting student learning overseas. With suitable training, risk analysis and agreements in place, this gave us the potential to explore off shore practice based learning, clinical attachments.

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research (JFAR) is a new, open access, peer-reviewed online journal that encompasses all aspects of policy, organisation, delivery and clinical practice related to the assessment, diagnosis, prevention and management of foot and ankle disorders. JFAR will cover a wide range of clinical subject areas, including diabetology, paediatrics, sports medicine, gerontology and geriatrics, foot surgery, physical therapy, dermatology, wound management, radiology, biomechanics and bioengineering, orthotics and prosthetics, as well the broad areas of epidemiology, policy, organisation and delivery of services related to foot and ankle care. The journal encourages submission from all health professionals who manage lower limb conditions, including podiatrists, nurses, physical therapists and physiotherapists, orthopaedists, manual therapists, medical specialists and general medical practitioners, as well as health service researchers concerned with foot and ankle care. All manuscripts will undergo open peer review, and all accepted manuscripts will be freely available on-line using the open access platform of BioMed Central.

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research was launched one year ago, and a number of its key achievements are highlighted in this editorial. Although the journal is underpinned by professional bodies associated with the podiatry professions in the UK and Australasia, its content is aimed at the wider foot and ankle research community. Nevertheless, the journal's achievements over the past year reflect the development of research in the profession of podiatry. From this perspective, the journal may be viewed as contributing to the overall attainment of some of the profession's key goals and strategic aims over the last decade, across the UK and Australasia. The journal has also witnessed policy changes in the last year, and these are discussed - notably, the decision not to accept case reports for publication. We also report on a few of the key metrics, providing readers with a summary of the journal's performance over the last year.