Why We Exist,Our Competitive Edge,and a Mea Culpa Moment

All the changes in Bariatric Surgical Practice and Patient Care since its rebirth in 2013 have captured much attention from colleagues around the globe. The three most often repeated comments can be grouped into content, international appeal, and interdisciplinary approach. We can only agree. Top read articles include up-to-date statistics on the types of bariatric surgeries performed, ¹ relevant review articles such as reading food labels, ² and iron deficiency associated with weight loss surgery. ³ Close to half of all article submissions are from countries outside of the United States. Just about every issue includes articles that discuss psychosocial issues faced by the bariatric surgical patient. Take, for example, the article addressing the emotional pain of weight regain by Geraci et al. who documented that even a small amount of weight regain has a tremendous negative impact on the patients. ⁴ Every recent issue has a centerpiece that attracts readers to dive in and read more. Being guided by our original intention to be interdisciplinary, immediately relevant for our patients, and globally engaging has led us to this high point. Our accomplishments are the result of careful paper selection, visiting hundreds of presenters and posters at meetings, and convincing experts in their fields to write review articles because we felt our readers really needed them.

Furthermore, by tightly controlling article recruitment, review, and throughput, we have been able to ensure consistent article quality in a timely way. The Editorial Board thanks our reviewers and our editorial office in New York for their time and packaging every issue into beautiful presents to our readers.

The superb articles produced by the Journal have made us very competitive in our publication sector. The truly unique aspect of this journal is how it brings surgeons and nonsurgeons alike to the same place. A surgeon can read about patient body image ⁵ in the same issue that uses instructive illustrations to describe treatment of gastrojejunostomy strictures. ⁶ In this sense, readers broaden their knowledge beyond their narrower focus and that invariably leads to better patient care.

Another example of an immediately relevant article, written by two renowned experts, is found in this issue (vol. 10, issue 4). Beth Duggan, an anesthesiologist who has managed the recovery of countless patients in the postanesthesia care unit, and Nancy Collop, a world-class sleep medicine specialist, write about proper screening and management of surgical patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). When plaintiffs are winning the majority of litigation over undiagnosed or undertreated OSA with average financial penalties ranging from $650,000 to $7.7 million, ⁷ the Duggan-Collop article deserves a good reading. Articles that are just in time and can immediately raise the quality of patient care are why the Journal exists.

The Journal has also reached a point where high-level data and study designs require expert perusal, and for that, Dr. Virginia Shaffer has agreed to serve that role from within the Editorial Board.

Finally, I had a mea culpa moment. A senior editorial board member reminded me that all board members can certainly do more (conversation reinterpreted by me). In a way, my wish to protect the board member's time while assuring that all our submissions are efficiently treated may have inadvertently caused neglect of some board members, while over-relying on others. My goal for 2016 is to engage with and contact every editorial board member directly to make sure we capture every vantage point. It is by the convergence of viewpoints that peer review truly thrives and our journal aims to elevate this process to the benefit of the authors, the readers, and the board members. On that note, I want to wish all of you who are striving to advance our science peace and a wonderful new year.