Can we believe…

Can we believe what we read? As practitioners and researchers we trust in good faith that the information presented within our professional journals is a true and accurate representation of the authors' work; be it a substantive review of the literature on a particular area, or the use of previous research to support the clinical findings of an interesting case. As authors, we are responsible for the verification of our sources. It is far too easy to read an abstract or a paper and take the information at face value rather than appraise the work with a critical eye. As clinicians out in the field this is often all there is time for. It is when we use this information that we must question its accuracy. Are we using second, third or fourth sources to highlight our points and if this is the case, can we rely on the accuracy of interpretation by subsequent authors from the original paper? Authors must take ownership of the material they are presenting and show due diligence in building and validating their arguments. It is easy to showcase material without deep reflection as to the quality of the methods and interpretation of results used. The use of highly skilled authors and reviewers is a step [to overcome this problem] that I am implementing as Editor of Australasian Chiropractic & Osteopathy (ACO). This step involves the canvassing of experienced clinical researchers and practitioners to write clinically relevant articles to share experience, research findings, critical reviews and ideas. The next step is to have these papers reviewed by qualified experts from within the Chiropractic and Osteopathic professions and relevant experts closely affiliated with them. While it may be challenging for inexperienced prospective authors it is expected that this process will continue to enhance the quality and reputation of the journal both within and outside our professions. Quite often the quality of a profession is judged by the quality of their publications. This is especially true for those who view our professions from the outside and comment on their clinical and scientific basis. The change to incorporate more clinically relevant papers is hoped to improve an already impressive professional College and journal. This process of publishing clinically relevant papers by individuals is not designed to stifle critical and creative thought, but to promote it within the readership. I hope this will encourage you all to think about …