Support for the Cause
We are constantly trying to increase the value of The Consultant Pharmacist to the readership. In particular, the peer-reviewed sections —Clinical Notes, Clinical Reviews, and Research and Reports—provide new information that we believe is of great value. The peer-review process, although challenging and tedious at times for writer, reviewer, and editor, usually provides affirmation of the quality of the end-product.
As editor, one of the goals I have that is shared by many on staff and in the ASCP membership, is achieving indexing status in Index Medicus, and hence access to the journal by a global audience through Medline. In order for this to happen, the journal must be critiqued by a selection committee and meet certain stringent criteria. One of the most rigorous criteria is the quality of peer-reviewed manuscripts published. The journal has published exemplary information in these sections, but such manuscripts must be more frequent and include more original research articles with defensible results. So how are we going to accomplish this?
The first step was selection of the Editorial Review Board to review the scientific accuracy and originality of the manuscripts. The members of the Board, as noted on the masthead on page 219, were chosen for their professional training and practice, prior experience with reviewing manuscripts, and record of publishing in peer-reviewed journals.
The next step was creation of an Editorial Advisory Board (see page 219). These individuals have agreed to provide a significant level of contributions, both in advice to me as editor and in material contributions of original research and review articles to the journal. Many of you know of this group’s historic level of contributions to the journal, the Society, and the global community of geriatric pharmacotherapy.
The final step is you. Without your contributions, the journal will never reach this goal of increasing the scientific presence of The Consultant Pharmacist—the goal that will provide so many clinicians with valuable information on the pharmaceutical care of the elderly. As you read this issue, think about what you could share with colleagues through the pages of this journal. You have unique expertise that is certain to be of value to others.
Take a look at the article by Ernest J. Dole and Gireesh V. Gupchup (page 286), for example. Their review of the screening instruments used for alcohol use disorders in the elderly will undoubtedly help many readers sort out the tools available and decide which (though all have shortcomings) are best for their particular setting. And Paula Zelle’s review (page 294) on developing an infection control program for the long-term care pharmacy will surely be useful to other groups who need such a program and don’t know where to start. These are the kinds of articles you too can provide to advance the field of consultant pharmacy. The journal and your colleagues are counting on you.
|
