key: cord-0793082-4n2g87hx authors: nan title: Read, use and cite date: 2020-09-29 journal: J Hip Preserv Surg DOI: 10.1093/jhps/hnaa032 sha: 3970e405397eccd682938a00bd9650f54a212805 doc_id: 793082 cord_uid: 4n2g87hx nan are locations where research can be published without peer review and simply stay there to be read by the world. The work can subsequently be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and, even if the submission is rejected, the research can remain on the pre-print server. Many of the so-called important research developments during the COVID-19 pandemic have come from research that has not been peerreviewed. However, what these pre-print servers allow is speedy publication at a time when information needs to be widely disseminated. They work at a pace with which peerreviewed journals simply cannot compete. The downside is the lack of a peer-review safeguard. Yet the pandemic has shown just how fast and open science publishing can bewhen scientists want it that way [8] . I suspect we will look back on these times and say that COVID-19 was when academic publishing changed. I, for one, will look at the use of pre-print servers very differently now, compared with how I perceived them barely 6 months ago. Some findings have not even made it as far as a preprint server. Not so long ago I was hearing that dexamethasone was the way forward for COVID-19 infection. I heard this at a government news briefing and the finding was declared a major breakthrough [9] . Dexamethasone was said to reduce in-hospital deaths by a third in patients with severe respiratory complications, or so the RECOVERY Trial [10] from Oxford reported. Yet I learned that from a politician without a medical qualification to his name. I did not read about it in a peer-reviewed journal. Thanks to the rush to be published during the pandemic, journals seem to be falling over each other to publish papers on COVID-19. Because of this, oddities can slip through, even for well-established journals. Retraction Watch [11] is one of my favourite web sites, which I must visit at least five times weekly. As I write, the site reports 22 papers on COVID-19 that have been retracted, three have been temporarily retracted, and there are two expressions of concern. Some are papers on preprint servers, others are more traditional. For example, there was the hydroxychloroquine study that appeared in The Lancet on 22 May 2020 but had been retracted by 4 June 2020 [12] . For a period, this article was the death knell of hydroxychloroquine in the management of COVID-19 and resulted in the cessation of a World Health Organization (WHO) study into the drug. The Lancet has an IF of approximately 59. Or, the letter by Bae et al. [13] from South Korea in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The letter declared that both surgical and cotton masks were ineffective in preventing dissemination of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from the coughs of patients with COVID-19, to the environment and external mask surface. The letter first appeared in the journal on 6 April 2020 and had been retracted by 1 June 2020. The journal's IF is approximately 20. At the time of writing this editorial, the letter has had what is called an Attention Score of 7213. This puts it in the top 5% of all research scored by Altmetric. To date, the letter has been mentioned by 104 news outlets, 15 blogs, two policy sources, 10 498 Tweeters and 34 Facebook pages. The demographic breakdown of the Tweeters showed that 89% of them were members of the public but 10% were scientists or healthcare practitioners of some sort [14] . It thus appears the pandemic has changed the face of scientific research. Faulty papers are slipping through the net, perhaps because of the haste to publish. Pre-print servers, which are not peer-reviewed, are dictating policy and may sometimes be the first port of call for those who wish to be updated on current research. Announcements are made by politicians about scientific research that has not even been submitted. Where will it all end? What seems clear is that the world of academic publishing once COVID-19 comes under control, if such a Utopia is ever possible, will be very different to the world we experienced beforehand. It is why publishers are proceeding with great caution, and why no journal can rest on its laurels and presume that in a year's time it will still exist. What about JHPS? So far so good. Our first IF is brilliant, and it is thanks to everyone that we have got this far. My job, your job, all our jobs, is to secure our future as best we can. For this reason, I would beg of you all to read us, use us and cite us, definitely cite us, wherever and whenever you can. I should add that I am delighted to say that our submissions are increasing at a time when I thought they might decline. Please keep it that way. Turning to our last issue, number 7.1, it has proved welcome reading for me during the pandemic to date. I was particularly fascinated by the paper from McGovern et al. [15] that supported the use of conservative management to improve outcomes for patients with pre-arthritic hip pain. Also, and because I am an enthusiast for the use of fibrin, I always like to read of those who handle articular cartilage defects in different ways. The paper by Arriaza et al. [16] did this. The senior author had, first time round, elevated an articular cartilage defect that presented as a wave sign, undertaken a subchondral microfracture and fixed the adjacent labrum with bone anchors. This second-look study showed that although 85% had a wave sign on the first occasion, only 15% had it on second look. I am not sure I will put my fibrin away at the moment but may have to start looking at it with suspicion. We will see. As for this issue, number 7.2, once again it is impossible for me to choose. Basically, each paper has held me spellbound, but then you would expect that of an editor. Completely subjectively, and without apology, two stand out to me. First, and especially as the number of submissions we are receiving in the field of open hip preservation surgery is slowly rising, I saw the paper by Lara et al. [17] on Bernese periacetabular osteotomy. They looked at patients who had undergone an osteotomy but whose intra-articular lesions had remained untreated. They obtained excellent results from a periacetabular osteotomy but without labral repair. That flies in the face of what I was expecting but JHPS is all about the unexpected. The other paper that had me nodding in agreement was that by Waryasz et al. [18] who looked at whether patients understand what we are doing to them. I would like to pretend that I did not expect their findings. The authors concluded, and I am citing from their paper, 'Although we made significant pre-operative oral and written efforts to help patients achieve an elementary level of health literacy regarding their forthcoming hip arthroscopy, many patients did not achieve satisfactory comprehension'. Why does that not surprise me? So, as ever, please enjoy this issue of JHPS. It is published for you, the hip preservation practitioner, and is filled from cover to cover with brilliance. I commend this issue to you in its entirety. Oh yes, and please read, use and cite this journal at every opportunity. Ask everyone you know to do the same. My very best wishes to you all. UK journalism 'on precipice' and needs government rescue. Campaign 2020 Journalism on the precipice: Rescue required as financial pressures on media grow A quarter of dennis publishing UK staff facing redundancy. The Guardian 2020 Future of Q magazine in doubt as coronavirus crisis hits media. The Guardian 2020 The future of publishing after COVID-19 Kindness and empathy will be skills of the future in India's media and publishing industry Will the pandemic permanently alter scientific pubishing? Nature (news feature) 2020. Available at: https:// www.nature.com/articles Update: Dexamethasone 'Breakthrough', BAME Report Part 2 Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) Available at: www.retractionwatch Hydroxycholoroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: a controlled comparison in 4 patients Conservative management acutely improves functional movement and clinical outcomes in patients with pre-arthritic hip pain Findings on repaired full-thickness acetabular articular cartilage defects during revision hip arthroscopy allowing a second look Bernese periacetabular osteotomy: functional outcomes in patients with untreated intraarticular lesions Patient comprehension of hip arthroscopy: an investigation of health literacy