Abstract
This issue is the midpoint in the 24th volume of your journal. We believe it is a good time to reflect on the content. This is not a special issue by any means, but it is representative of the material we are honored to share with our readers. The material represents the best in highly competitive submissions, which you have continued to find useful based upon the increased impact of the journal, and the utility reflected in the number of downloads.
There are eight articles, a letter to the editor, and this editorial. The letter calls our attention to an app for dermatology. There are also three excellent reviews.
One review deals with short message services for the management of surgical patients. Ten years ago who would have considered this as a reasonable subject for highly personal encounters between surgical patients and their surgeons? Yet, in this review we find that electronic media have become a highly valued asset for connecting fragile and highly individual surgical patients with their caregivers.
Another review deals with telehealth interventions for enhanced quality of life for cancer patients, an especially vulnerable and needful population. Cancer patients are often separated from their care teams by distance, as patients seek definitive care at sites away from their homes in specialized centers which are excellent, but not widely distributed.
Finally, there is a review of remote assessment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The disease itself isolates patients; management from a distant site of expertise is desirable. This management involves sudden changes and the need for accurate and timely assessment to spare these patients who are at risk for severe complications that can interrupt secure management and lead to hospitalization and a greater threat.
There are five research articles on various topics, including dentistry, children with special needs and behavioral support for parents, workload management for telehealth workers, and otolaryngology. Note the diversity of well studied applications for telemedicine technology. The research comes from industry and universities in Brazil, Australia, the United States, and Germany. They reflect the richness of funding sources in the countries of origin and from industry. They reflect the global standard for multiple sites, controlled trials, multiple authors, and excellence in writing. The work often represents a close collaboration between universities on different continents. We believe that the articles from individual countries are not iterative publications of experiences in just another area of the world, but articles of great pertinence to a broad readership collecting data, perhaps from a single country.
Technology is not the primary focus, but figures prominently in important clinical and practical issues. It is our intent that articles may inform and advance the work of our readers. Do these articles represent all that are being published in telemedicine? Certainly not! Most articles relative to telemedicine are published in the appropriate engineering journals for technology. Most detailed clinical applications have moved to the specialty journals of that clinical endeavor, and theirs is the readership targeted because the concept of telemedicine is no longer obtuse, but clearly embraced by a broad range of clinical specialties. However, we publish things that are new: technology that is being vetted, new clinical applications that may not have reached common use in a clinical discipline, new approaches to education, new approaches to capacity building, and new approaches to communication and important policy matters. We seek to publish outcomes that might affect the practices and research of our readers.
The articles in this issue have been reviewed by a cadre of editorial board members and authors who have previously published in the area of study. The reviewers are from many countries and the articles are never without questions to be answered. This takes time; however, the biggest delay is not in reviewing but the timeline from when the article is accepted until it is published. For example, the articles in this issue are all from 2017, and all have been published in electronic form for many months. When we became your editors some 15 years ago, many articles needed extensive editing for syntax and the authors often had limited experience in publication. That is no longer true. The best writing coming in on any given day may be from colleagues in China, and many articles are from authors who are experienced scientists and practitioners who have published often in this journal and elsewhere. We still like to see new authors and support their careers through publication. Certainly, that is one of the delights of editing.
More than ever, though, submitted articles are rejected. It is our intent that even in rejection, the reviewers and your editors may offer advice that will encourage and guide. We would like to see all who are devoting their careers to telemedicine to move ahead and make the great contributions in the future. Our reviewers do not serve as simple “yes” or “no” judges. We look for reviewers who can make articles better through requests for revision. Our reviewers are excellent in identifying articles that just might have been published elsewhere. The reviewers are also generous in pointing out areas of discussion and background that might make the article better by including pertinent references and previous work in the area.
Yours is not the only publication in telemedicine by any means. We realize that we are in competition for the best articles to support our first priority—our readers. We receive articles that we know have been rejected elsewhere. Surely, some of the articles we reject reciprocate that by submission to a competing journal. That is good!!
Finally, it must be said that your journal is not the humble product of the desktop computers of your editors. We are supported by the publisher, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., with which we meet regularly. Our liaison, Sophie Mohin, is a great talent and is highly skilled in the publishing world. We are supported by the Liebert team, which puts out more than 90 journals. We are expertly supported by copywriters and editorial staff as well as legal and marketing experts. We do not just get to ask them wonderful questions, but they are very much involved in giving us advice and direction to assure success. This journal has been a special effort by Mary Ann Liebert herself who has not only published this journal from the beginning with Volume 1, but also continues to monitor and inspire its progress.
This is our point in time. We will continue to seek the advice of those who believe in the importance and presence of telemedicine in modern healthcare. Our first priority shall remain our readers. Our second priority is the telemedicine community and its authors. There are certainly other priorities and parameters for us to mind and use for guidance. If you have advice, always remember that this is your journal and we are here to serve you.