so, the first issue was badass. the second, not bad, worth my while. the third might as hell have been the archives, IMHO. not very happy with the trend, here. thoughts?
PM&R journal going downhill?
- Thread starter SSdoc33
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,758
- Reaction score
- 85
the one article I thought was interesting was the ipsilateral vs contralateral cane. (admit I'm biased cuz i am at UCLA)
I've been counseling patients in clinic on the "proper use of cane" - and I may have to change what I teach/say. I also used to make fun of that ER doc and house MD for walking with the ipsilateral cane gait - but now I guess I can't.
I've been counseling patients in clinic on the "proper use of cane" - and I may have to change what I teach/say. I also used to make fun of that ER doc and house MD for walking with the ipsilateral cane gait - but now I guess I can't.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2002
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 2
I like the the new PM&R journal because of it's UMich bias
Srsly, haven't had a chance to read this month's. Just got back from a trip and and need to wade through the bills and junk mail, let alone the PM&R Journal and Muscle & Nerve.
Srsly, haven't had a chance to read this month's. Just got back from a trip and and need to wade through the bills and junk mail, let alone the PM&R Journal and Muscle & Nerve.
Didn't get it yet.. but a journal can only be as good as the articles submitted.
Promoting high quality research is a must in this field.. unfortunately as a faculty at a large program, the vast majority of residents I train have little interest in academics (including those going into fellowships). If we do not make research a priority it will bite us in the future.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 348
- Reaction score
- 1
I completely disagree. I think the journal has been fantastic, and very much the journal I've always wanted for our field.
Some strengths:
- it reads well. There is a great mix of articles and features. It's actually fun to read, like a good magazine that happens to be about our field.
- Good mix of topics. Just looking at issue #3, there are articles about gait, orthoses, medical education, stroke, sci, tbi, osteoporosis, exercise, PT techniques, EMG, spine injections, and joint replacement. You would be really hard pressed to have a journal more precisely targeted toward our field. For sports, I read MSSE, and for spine I read Spine. For PMR, the obvious journal to read now is PMR. Just the way it should be.
- Layout- again, just adds to the readability.
I think this is clearly the best overall journal in our field. There are better journals for more specialized areas, but I think PM&R succeeds in being THE journal that targets the needs of the field as a whole.
Some strengths:
- it reads well. There is a great mix of articles and features. It's actually fun to read, like a good magazine that happens to be about our field.
- Good mix of topics. Just looking at issue #3, there are articles about gait, orthoses, medical education, stroke, sci, tbi, osteoporosis, exercise, PT techniques, EMG, spine injections, and joint replacement. You would be really hard pressed to have a journal more precisely targeted toward our field. For sports, I read MSSE, and for spine I read Spine. For PMR, the obvious journal to read now is PMR. Just the way it should be.
- Layout- again, just adds to the readability.
I think this is clearly the best overall journal in our field. There are better journals for more specialized areas, but I think PM&R succeeds in being THE journal that targets the needs of the field as a whole.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 782
- Reaction score
- 3
I agree w/ rehab_sports_dr. So far, so good.
Before you go on bashing the purple journal, take a glance at the table of contents of the latest Archives and imagine what may have been
Before you go on bashing the purple journal, take a glance at the table of contents of the latest Archives and imagine what may have been
perhaps i may have been misundestood. my reference to the first issue as being "badass" meant that i thought it was really good.
the first issue definitely catered to the former passor sports/spine/pain crowd. i think this was done intentionally to get those members to buy in to this new journal. however, there is no doubt (in my mind, anyway) that the latest 2 have been trending away from that and closer to the more bread and butter general rehab articles.
and therein lies the problem: the purple journal is the best journal that we have, but again, it seems that the vast majority of the articles will not be oertinent to what most physiatrists do on a daily basis -- ie: outpatent MSK medicine.
yeah, i could read spine, pain journals, sports journals, etc., but i was hoping that the purple journal would continue to be more representative of what most physiatrists do. the trend is clearly away from this angle, IMHO.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,182
- Reaction score
- 37
I wonder if it's from most articles coming from academia, which has an inherent and historical bias toward inpt/rehab?
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 782
- Reaction score
- 3
Not bad meaning bad but bad meaning good. Dude, Im not that old
I think I got what you meant. The new journal I think needs to strive to be all things to all people, as is the nature of our specialty. Maybe Im biased since my practice, although w/ a neuromuscular focus, does tend to be more general, non-interventional PM&R. And I appreciate the medical education articles, being an academic/teacher. Archives, as it was and as it is now, does not have a lot of practical utility, no matter what subspecialty of PM&R you practice.
I dont buy that. There are/were a lot of prolific academic pain/MSK physiatrists out there. Smith, Malanga, Slipman, etc. My theory as Archives became less clinically relevant and more difficult to navigate (9-12 months from submission to publication?!?), authors drifted to other journals, some of which (like Spine) are frankly associated with more prestige. It may take some time for them to drift back to the purple journal.
point well taken. essentially, archives didnt really appeal to ANY physiatrists, while the purple journal does appear to appeal to some. we'll see where it goes....
