A Thank You to JBJS Elite Reviewers
We would like to express our sincerest gratitude for all of our Elite Reviewers. These are a select group of individuals who go above and beyond the Reviewer duties and provide consistent, quality reviews for all submissions. We would not be able to uphold our high standards for peer-review without their contributions.
- Julie Agel
- Robert Arciero
- Jan Bartoníček
- Ross A. Benthien
- John G. Birch
- R. Dale Blasier
- Thomas J. Blumenfeld
- Martin Boublik
- Keith Bridwell
- Chew Ee Ming Darryl
- Charles N. Cornell
- Roger Cornwall
- Thomas A. DeCoster
- Douglas R. Dirschl
- Lori Ann Dolan
- Lawrence D. Dorr
- Shivi Duggal
- Paul, J. Duwelius
- Nicholas J. Giori
- H. Kerr Graham
- A. Seth Greenwald
- Allan E. Gross
- Christopher D. Harner
- Iftach Hetsroni
- Nitin Jain
- David S. Jevsevar
- Charles E. Johnston
- Grant Lloyd Jones
- Michael P. Kelly
- Andrew P. Kurmis
- Nicholas Kusnezov
- William D. Lack
- Simon M. Lambert
- Mark Chong Lee
- Paul E. Levin
- Jonathan C. Levy
- Morio Matsumoto
- Terence E. McIff
- Michael D. McKee
- Harry A. McKellop
- Dana C. Mears
- Saeed Miramini
- Fred R. Nelson
- Peter O. Newton
- Kanu Okike
- Steven A. Olson
- Terrance Peabody
- Stephen Pinney
- Kodali Siva Rama Krishna Prasad
- Per-Henrik Randsborg
- David Ring
- Peter S. Rose
- Robert C. Schenck, Jr.
- Herbert S. Schwartz
- Edward M. Schwarz
- William F. Scully
- Howard Seeherman
- David A. Spiegel
- Michael A. Stone
- James B. Talmage
- Lauren M. Tatman
- James E. Tibone
- Daniel G. Tobert
- Thomas Parker Vail
- Andre J. van Wijnen
- Arvind G. von Keudell
- Brian C. Werner
- Carol A. Wise
- David A. Wong
- Jacques T. YaDeau
- Adolph J. Yates, Jr.
Read more about our Elite Reviewers Program here.
Thank you, JBJS Reviewers
JBJS would like to thank and acknowledge all of the reviewer feedback received for Peer Review Week 2017. Below are the 2017 JBJS top reviewers who responded to the survey:
Robert J. Barth, PhD
Keith M. Baumgarten, MD
Timothy Bhattacharyya, MD
Eric M. Black, MD
Desmond Brown, MD
Pablo Castañeda, MD
Michael W. Chapman, MD
Antonia Chen, MD
Quanjun Cui, MD
Thomas DeCoster, MD
John R. Denton, MD
Sarah DeWitt, MD
Shivi Duggal, MD, MBA
Steve Elder, MD
Christopher Evans, MD
Mary Forte, PhD, DC
Joshua Gary, MD
Michelle Ghert, MD
Jessica Goetz, MD
James H. Herndon, MD
Carlos Higuera, MD
Nitin Jain, MD
Kelly Johnston, MD
Richard Kang, MD
Michael Kelly, MD
David H. Kim, MD
H. Mike Kim, MD
Michael Klassen, MD
William Lack, MD
Simon Lambert, MD
Loren Latta, MD
Gwo-Chin Lee, MD
Mengnai Li, MD
Guoan Li, MD
Luke McDonald, MD
Terence McIff, MD
Harry A. McKellop, PhD
Dana Mears, MD
James Michelson, MD
Peter M. Murray, MD
Dr. Jonathan Negus, MD
William Obremskey, MD
Javad Parvizi, MD
Benjamin Kyle Potter, MD
Hollis Potter, MD
William M. Ricci, MD
David Ring, MD
Raymond Robinson, MD
Joseph Schwab, MD
Brian J. Sennett, MD
James A. Shaw MD
Franklin H. Sim, MD
Marvin E. Steinberg, MD
James B Stiehl, MD, MBA
Kimberly Templeton, MD
Richard Terek, MD, FACS
Karen Troy, MD
Dionysios-Alexandros Verettas, MD
Scott Weiner, MD
Brian C. Werner, MD
John Wixted, MD
James Wright, MD
Alan Hargen, MD
We would like to thank these individuals as well as our entire pool of reviewers, whose ongoing contributions to JBJS enable us to continually work towards our mission of improving patient care around the world.
Thank You, JBJS Elite Reviewers
The JBJS Elite Reviewers Program publicly recognizes our best reviewers for their outstanding efforts. Reviewers who review 4 or more manuscripts per year, rarely decline an invitation to review a manuscript (responding within 48 hours), and complete highly graded reviews within 1 week are eligible for the program. Elite Reviewers receive the following benefits in recognition of their exemplary performance:
- No submission fees for papers of which the reviewer is the first author (for 12 months)
- Free CME credits for all reviews
- Free online access to all JBJS publications
- A letter to the reviewer’s department head from JBJS Editor-in-Chief, Marc Swiontkowski, MD, recognizing and commending his/her good work
- Name recognition on the JBJS Elite Reviewers Program Web page and on the masthead of The Journal
For JBJS Consultant Reviewer Guidelines, visit http://bit.ly/2cWvYvc.
To learn how you can be a better reviewer visit http://bit.ly/2cRt1hY.
Here is an updated list of JBJS Elite Reviewers:
Peer Review Week Day 1-PM
JBJS is helping celebrate Peer Review Week 2017 by formally recognizing some of its top reviewers for their contributions. Each day during Peer Review Week 2017, JBJS will profile six different top reviewers on OrthoBuzz each morning and afternoon. This afternoon, let’s meet Simon Lambert, Dionysios-Alexandros Verettas, and Luke McDonald.
Simon Lambert, MD
University College London Hospital
What do you like best about reviewing for JBJS?
I value the opportunity to learn new ideas and understand current concepts and clinical practice in my field of surgery while contributing to the endeavour to maintain the high quality of evidence and scientific argumentation that defines a high-level framework of thinking.
How do you find time to review for JBJS?
I always carry my laptop with me to read each paper a number of times during those gaps in the working day that inevitably open up. After evening family time, I review references for relevance and, in doing so, follow each reference’s trail to be clear how that reference has been used in the paper. I use the challenge of my own rudimentary knowledge of statistics to look up and understand the various tests to try to be clear they have been used appropriately. I will then formulate a list of impressions and comments on my note pad. I review this list after a week or so and then write my review having considered each paper a number of times.
What do you see as JBJS‘ role in shaping the future of orthopaedics?
I believe the JBJS has a number of important roles:
1. to maintain a high standard of scientific communication (a technical role);
2. to maintain and develop clinical practice commensurate with evolving scientific knowledge (an instructional and moderating role);
3. to promote research [into epidemiology, basic science (biological and mechanical), applied science, and audit of practice] which forms the foundation for novel interventions and future technologies (a forward-facing role).
Dionysios-Alexandros Verettas, MD
Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
What do you like best about reviewing for JBJS?
Since the JBJS is the most prestigious journal of orthopaedics, the majority of the papers submitted are of high quality and thus give the oportunity to the reviewer to follow the most up-to-date research. I must add that the editorial office make the JBJS one of the most reviewer-friendly journals.
Q3 How do you find time to review for JBJS?
I find that the best time for reviewing is after office hours, when some relaxation is needed.
Q4 What do you see as JBJS‘ role in shaping the future of orthopaedics?
JBJS certainly plays a prime role in shaping the future of orthopaedics both in research and in education and training, at least in the USA. However, I would like the journal to include views and strategies that could apply to Europe as well.
Luke McDonald, MD
Naval Medical Center San Diego
What do you like best about reviewing for JBJS?
I enjoy reviewing for JBJS as the manuscripts are well-written, allowing me to focus on the research rather than the writing style, and assigned topics fall within my areas of interest.
How do you find time to review for JBJS?
I am privileged to have the opportunity to review for JBJS, and build the time into my schedule, usually between cases or in the evenings.
What do you see as JBJS‘ role in shaping the future of orthopaedics?
Despite the rise of multiple subspecialty journals, JBJS remains the premier orthopaedic journal, disseminating quality literature to all subspecialty fields.
Peer Review Week Day 1-AM
JBJS is helping celebrate Peer Review Week 2017 by formally recognizing some of its top reviewers for their contributions. Each day during Peer Review Week 2017, JBJS will profile six different top reviewers on OrthoBuzz each morning and afternoon. This morning, let’s meet Benjamin “Kyle” Potter, Steve Elder, David H. Kim.
Benjamin “Kyle” Potter, MD
Walter Reed National Military Medical Center
What do you like best about reviewing for JBJS?
It gives me a sneak peek at some of what is coming in the Journal and forces me to really examine the article I am reviewing, and as a consequence other articles, with a more discerning and intellectually inquiring eye.
How do you find time to review for JBJS?
I have no idea – we’re surgeons, we make time. Seriously, while the cumulative time to do a good review can be onerous, it is not that difficult to read an article in whole or part, take some notes, and then write/dictate/transcribe the longer review later when you have some more time. So breaking it up helps, makes it more feasible and I think actually results in a better review than just cranking it out all at once, because you have some time to let the paper marinate.
What do you see as JBJS‘ role in shaping the future of orthopaedics?
I think the quality and focus of the content of our top journals like JBJS have a critical role in shaping how quickly and broadly new techniques or findings are adopted, and can further shape the emphasis of future research and practice changes in response to these same articles.
Steve Elder, MD
Mississippi State University
What do you like best about reviewing for JBJS?
I like the process. Blinding the authors’ identity to reviewers is a practice that I wish other journals would adopt. I also appreciate being notified of the editor’s decision and then being granted access to the comments of the other reviewers. I like to think reading their critiques helps me improve my own in the future.
How do you find time to review for JBJS?
I break it down into multiple short sessions. A careful readthrough of the entire manuscript taking notes during as many short bursts as my schedule will allow, followed by several periods where I mull it over and crystallize my opinion (e.g. while walking to and from meetings across campus), and then a furious bout of writing.
What do you see as JBJS‘ role in shaping the future of orthopaedics?
I believe in evidence-based medicine, and I see JBJS as a major source of the evidence on which I hope clinicians are basing decisions about treatment. I would also look to JBJS for the most promising experimental approaches.
David H. Kim, MD
New England Baptist Hospital
What do you like best about reviewing for JBJS?
Getting first access to the highest quality and most cutting edge orthopaedic research papers.
How do you find time to review for JBJS?
I dedicate every Wednesday afternoon to research and performing peer-review.
What do you see as JBJS‘ role in shaping the future of orthopaedics?
JBJS plays a critical role in screening and assessing all new scientific and technical developments in orthopaedics to make sure that its readership is exposed to only the highest-quality studies and most promising new advances.
JBJS: Mobile and Multimedia
The Journal is one of the most valued sources of information for orthopaedists and orthopaedic researchers. Standards of excellence for the content we publish and the customer service that we provide are not going to change. However, the way in which people access content is changing rapidly. Today, content producers are faced with the challenge of providing their content through media that are accessible on-the-go.
Hence, the JBJSmedia YouTube channel. Here you’ll find information about JBJS products, procedure demonstrations, and webinars featuring top experts in the field— easily digestible and accessible on-the-go. You can easily find the videos you are looking for by going to the playlists tab.
The newest feature of our YouTube channel is the JBJS Podcast. These digital audio abstracts of specially selected JBJS articles are overlaid onto a video track and uploaded to the channel at the end of each month.
Please visit the JBJSmedia YouTube channel. If you have suggestions for better ways JBJS can deliver content, feel free to send an email to info@jbjs.org.
Subscribe to the JBJSmedia YouTube channel
Subscribe to the JBJS Podcast on iTunes
Contributed by
Nicholas Schepis
Social Media and Analytics Specialist, JBJS
What’s New in Musculoskeletal Infection: Update on Biofilms
Every month, JBJS publishes a Specialty Update—a review of the most pertinent and impactful studies published in the orthopaedic literature during the previous year in 13 subspecialties. Click here for a collection of all OrthoBuzz Specialty Update summaries.
This month, Arvind Nana, MD, co-author of the July 20, 2016 Specialty Update on musculoskeletal infection, selected the three most compelling discoveries from among the more than 100 studies cited in the Specialty Update, which focused on biofilms.
Dr. Nana and his co-authors provide a concise primer on the biology of biofilms, the network of microorganisms that adhere to implant surfaces and form a complex structure surrounded by a self-generated extracellular polymeric matrix. This matrix not only anchors bacteria to orthopaedic implants, but also provides a nearly impenetrable defense mechanism against the host immune system. Staphylococci are the most common biofilm-forming bacteria found in orthopaedics.
Persister Cells in Biofilms
So-called persister cells have an inherent tolerance to antimicrobial agents. Misconceptions about persisters have permeated the literature. The authors provide clarification about persisters:
- Persister cells CAN be reliably killed when the antimicrobial concentration is high enough. The minimum biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC) is lower when antimicrobial exposure is continuous and prolonged.1
- Decreasing the number of microorganisms with antimicrobial intervention is NOT good enough. Cure requires the total elimination of all viable microbes.
Biofilm in Orthopaedic Trauma
Biofilm formation in the setting of open fractures is concerning because biofilm can develop on bone and in soft tissues in a matter of hours. The assumption is that appropriate surgical techniques for open fractures, including therapeutic antibiotic administration, can decrease bioburden and provide fracture stability, thus modulating the acute, local inflammatory response and minimizing biofilm formation.2 However, current technology does not enable noninvasive quantification of biofilm activity and presence in a stable open fracture following wound closure.
Biofilm in Total Joint Arthroplasty
Traditionally, prosthesis-related biofilm infections in the US have been treated by a 2-stage exchange arthroplasty. Although biofilm from the implant is removed by extraction of the components, the potential exists for persistence of biofilm in the surrounding soft tissues. Most patients treated for periprosthetic joint infections also receive intravenous antibiotics, but a recent in vitro study demonstrated that administering cefazolin even at increased concentrations still resulted in persistent Staphylococcus biofilm on cobalt-chromium, polymethylmethacrylate, and polyethylene,3 which supports the need for explantation.
There is still room to develop novel treatment methods for eradicating biofilm in periprosthetic joint infections. Future novel treatment methods for eradicating implant biofilm will help minimize the morbidity associated with current accepted periprosthetic joint infection treatment options.
References
- Castaneda P, McLaren A, Tavaziva G, Overstreet D. Biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility increases with antimicrobial exposure time. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Jan 21.
- Pfeifer R, Darwiche S, Kohut L, Billiar TR, Pape HC. Cumulative effects of bone and soft tissue injury on systemic inflammation: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Sep;471(9):2815-21.
- Urish KL, DeMuth PW, Kwan BW, Craft DW, Ma D, Haider H, Tuan RS, Wood TK, Davis CM 3rd..Antibiotic-tolerant Staphylococcus aureus biofilm persists on arthroplasty materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2016 Feb 1.
A Reminder about What Orthopaedic Surgeons Should Not Do
The Choosing Wisely campaign seeks to bring more awareness to tests and procedures that should be discussed between physicians and patients. The campaign was spearheaded by the ABIM Foundation, and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) partnered with the campaign to develop a list of the five things physicians and patients should question.
- Avoid performing routine post-operative deep vein thrombosis ultrasonography screening in patients who undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty.
- Don’t use needle lavage to treat patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee for long-term relief.
- Don’t use glucosamine and chondroitin to treat patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee.
- Don’t use lateral wedge insoles to treat patients with symptomatic medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee.
- Don’t use post-operative splinting of the wrist after carpal tunnel release for long-term relief.
The list was developed after review of approved clinical practice guidelines and included input from specialty society leaders.
Adieu Mady Tissenbaum
This week Mady Tissenbaum retires from her role as Publisher of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. Mady walked through the doors of the JBJS office 42 years ago to assume the role of a copy editor. She has been with JBJS ever since and her career responsibilities developed as the organization grew and expanded. Mady has presided over multiple important changes at JBJS: the move to Needham with the purchase of our building when we outgrew the shared space with The New England Journal of Medicine, the transition from paper and typewriter manuscripts and paper review processes to electronic submission and review, the launch of The Journal online at jbjs.org, and the branching out of our offerings to include JBJS Case Connector, JBJS Essential Surgical Techniques and JBJS Reviews.
Mady has literally “done it all” at JBJS. She has trained and collaborated with 6 Editors and attended over 60 Trustee meetings. She has led countless staff meetings and presented at a similar number of Editorial Board meetings. She has run the HR services, done all the contracting for purchased services and knows every stage of development of our complex IT backbone.
In addition, she is the archivist for The Journal and has most of its history in her head. Throughout her career, she has committed herself to the legacy of quality content that JBJS is known for, as well as to the staff, authors, and readers. Her contributions have enhanced not only JBJS, but also the larger community of scholarly publishing.
We wish you Godspeed in retirement, Mady, and thank you from the bottom of our hearts for dedicating your career to JBJS and the physicians and patients it serves.
Fondly and with great respect,
Marc Swiontkowski, MD
JBJS Editor-in-Chief
Healthcare Spending Growth Hits 50-Year Low
Healthcare spending in 2013 grew at the slowest rate since 1960, according to a recent article in Modern Healthcare. According to federal data, the nation spent $2.9 trillion on healthcare last year, which was an increase of 3.6% from the prior year—and the weakest spending growth since 1960. Reasons cited for the slowdown include aftermath from the Great Recession, changes in health benefits, and federal healthcare spending rollbacks triggered by the Affordable Care Act. For example, Medicare spending increased in 2013 by 3.4%, down from 4% growth in 2012. Spending on technology and construction to upgrade or expand healthcare services dropped during the recession and still has not rebounded. Most analysts don’t expect this growth slowdown to carry into 2014, although quarterly national estimates for 2014 suggest spending growth below 4%. While some of the slowdown in healthcare spending growth may be attributed to doctors and other healthcare professionals running more efficient practices, health spending in 2013 still consumed 17.4% of the US gross domestic product.
Try Clinical Classroom
Recent Comments