|Year : 2018 | Volume
| Issue : 1 | Page : 1-2
JIOS-50 and running
Prof. and HOD; Department of Orthodontics, SRMC, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
|Date of Web Publication||18-Jan-2018|
Dr. Sridevi Padmanabhan
Department of Orthodontics, SRMC, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
|How to cite this article:|
Padmanabhan S. JIOS-50 and running. J Indian Orthod Soc 2018;52:1-2
This year, the JIOS has entered its 50th year having been started in 1968, and this special year has started on a positive note with the successful conduct of the JIOS symposium in Pune. The JIOS is only slightly younger than other renowned international journals and much older than those of our sister organizations. Several stalwarts have been responsible for the inception and continuance of the journal and we are celebrating our 50th year because of their contributions. With more and more Indian Orthodontists contributing to global literature, there is no dearth of talent in our community. We have excellent clinicians and academicians, and many of our members are extremely published. There are those of us who have gone beyond, who serve as reviewers and editors on the boards of international journals. We, the first dental speciality society in the country, have grown by leaps and bounds in many spheres and one wonders if we have positioned our journal where it ought to be by means of support, protocol, and policy. It is time for introspection indeed.
Currently, the JIOS receives approximately 250 articles every year. About 40%–50% are original research, the rest being made up of mostly case reports and clinical innovations.
With approximately 250 postgraduate institutions in the country, at a very conservative count, 1250 dissertations are submitted every year; this means <10% reach the Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society. The attrition of 90% is worrying and probably means that despite the publish and perish maxim, publishing is not on our list of priorities.
With emphasis on evidence-based practice, we all know that systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are at the top of the evidence-based pyramid. A search of articles published in the JIOS since 2000 shows that there are no systematic reviews and RCTs published. A few articles have been recently published outlining the methodology behind these,, and it is heartening that a trickle of systematic reviews and RCTs has now started coming in. The reporting guidelines for these articles are specific and exacting, and authors, reviewers, and journal need to be on the same page and JIOS symposiums are a starting point for this. One fondly hopes that the young students who make up the bulk of the audience will contribute to the change we would like to see. They would be our future authors, reviewers, and editors.
Globally, all journals mandate an ethical approval predominantly when it involves clinical research or clinical material. Over the last few years, Institutional review boards have made great strides in regulating research, and this is a welcome and promising change. All authors who submit to the JIOS now include details of the ethical approval they have obtained, and this is a mindset that has slowly set in after overcoming some initial resistance. Still, there is a lot of variation in how ethical concerns are perceived from one institution to another. For example, while most international societies do not recommend routine use of CBCT,, it is alarming that some IRBs would approve CBCT exposure of young children to evaluate something relatively minor such as tooth mineralization or root position. Bioethics is a new discipline coined by Potter using two Greek words “Bios” meaning facts of life and “ethics” referring to morals and values. The UNESCO's Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights identifies fifteen bioethical principles that govern patient care and their use in research. While this is beyond the scope of this editorial, an increased awareness is necessary, and the IOS should play a leadership role in formulating guidelines which can be adopted by universities and regulatory bodies.
Scientific misconduct plagues us just as anywhere else in the world. With most journals, the digital footprint can be detected online and overlap easily detected by softwares. However, authorship misconduct is more difficult to regulate, and one hopes that the revised DCI guidelines where emphasis on authorship position no longer exists would relieve the pressure somewhat. Recently, the University Grants Commission announced a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism and made it abundantly clear that plagiarism would be penalized right from the doctorate to the undergraduate level. Universities and institutions doubtless would follow. It is but natural that this should extend to professional societies like the IOS and we need clear-cut policies for this.
Indexing is on the wish list of every member, and this depends on several factors such as regularity, quality of content, and journal policies. While some of these issues have been addressed, there is still room for improvement. Predatory publications  have been a cause for serious concern, and a reputable publishing house with transparent journal working policies would go a long way in achieving this.
Many international and national orthodontic organizations focus their energies on a single journal and increase its periodicity when the submissions increase. The editor is appointed by a panel after thorough evaluation of academic merit, and it is a selection process and not an election process. The tenure is longer for streamlining the journal administration.
I do believe that the JIOS was included in PubMed during 1976–1979, and while several of my esteemed predecessor have doubtless made their significant contributions to our long term goals during their tenure, with all the challenges discussed above, and constantly changing goal posts it requires a focused long-term sustained effort. Our governing policies have shortened the term of the editor and preclude continuity by restricting to one term. While this is definitely a populist measure, it serves the interests of individuals better than it serves the journal because, currently we have a 50-year-old journal which still has indexing on its roadmap not to mention the impact factor and other metrics that are a measure of a journals success.
“Realization is greater than knowledge. Knowledge is superficial if not realized.”
We live in exciting times where a lot of advances are being made in the field of orthodontics. Practice trends are challenging, and the astute clinician needs to provide evidence-based care. The scope for research is enormous, but unpublished research is unnecessary and unethical since it wastes resources without dissemination of information for the betterment of mankind. The journal requires to be nurtured by all members of the society which includes editor, reviewer, researcher, author, and reader.
Publishing demands hard work and discipline. With constant change in publishing trends, we need to be on our toes to unlearn old concepts and learn new ones. There needs to be a common willingness to invest time and resources on training and this applies to individual and society. We need to be the change we want to see.
“Without publication, science is dead”.
- Gerard Piel
| References|| |
Thiruvenkatachari B. Randomized controlled trials: The technique and challenges. J Indian Orthod Soc 2015;49:42-7. [Full text]
Mulimani P. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in evidence-based orthodontics: An appraisal and methodology. J Indian Orthod Soc 2017;51:220-32. [Full text]
American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology. Clinical recommendations regarding use of cone beam computed tomography in orthodontics. [corrected]. Position statement by the American academy of oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013;116:238-57.