Introduction
It is now one year since Journal of the Foot and Ankle Research (JFAR) was launched, and the editors are able to report positively on its progress. In that time, the journal has received, as demonstrated by the statistics below, a considerable range of research papers illustrating a wide diversity of relevant topics. The papers accepted for publication demonstrate the scope and range of research being conducted within the foot and ankle arena. It is certainly true that, to date, the majority of papers have been authored by researchers from within the podiatry profession. As the journal is funded by the Australasian Podiatry Council and the UK Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, this is perhaps hardly surprising. Nevertheless, it is far from exclusively podiatric research that features in its pages, a fact that reflects the wider aims of the journal. Yet, to pause for a moment on the state of research within podiatry, it is probably relevant to reflect on the upward trajectory of research in the profession, in terms of its profile, range and rigour.
Podiatric research has been a significant factor in ensuring that this journal is able to pursue one of its aims in becoming a truly international outlet. Credit for this trend is, perhaps, more difficult to attribute, although educational changes in the profession have almost certainly influenced the increase in the practice and profile of research. It is probably fair to say that research has assumed a greater priority across the allied health professions in Australasia and the UK over the last 20 years, illustrated by the volume and breadth of its published research, and it may not be coincidental that both nations have witnessed a significant change in their professional educational status over that time, both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Education in Australasian and British podiatry has not always been at graduate level, and it is, perhaps, easy to forget that graduate status in UK and Australian podiatry was introduced in the 1980s, and only fully replacing a vocational, clinically orientated, professional award by the early 1990s. A similar picture has characterised developments in New Zealand [
1,
2].
In the UK, the development of a degree programme at the Polytechnic of Central London in the mid 1980s signalled the start of the progression towards a fully graduate profession, and merits comment as a major landmark in the overall process [
3]. In Canada the situation is more complex, where two Provinces employ the US podiatric medicine degree, whilst the majority of other Provinces recognise UK, Australasian and South African graduate BSc programmes, and, in Ontario, the Michener Institute now requires graduate entry to its advanced diploma in podiatric medicine [
4]. Indeed, the advent of this journal was greeted enthusiastically by the Canadian Federation of Podiatric Medicine [
5]. In the USA, DPM degrees have been in place since the 1960s [
6,
7], and although international comparisons are notoriously difficult to make [
8], it is nevertheless clear that uniform educational uplift in podiatry is now evident across the Anglophone world.
Let us take the UK as an exemplar. What is clear is that none of these changes happened by chance - they were part of a clear strategic intention [
9]. The National Health Service Executive Chiropody Task Force report of 1994 identified nine research priorities for podiatry [
10], leading, in 1995, to the NHS Research and Development Programme inviting the King's Fund to consider ways in which the podiatry profession might be "encouraged to do more research" [
11]. One result of this was the establishment of the national Podiatric Research Forum, and, by 2003, a research strategy for the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, in which the acquisition of a professional journal with medical database listing was central [
9]. A number of editorials in the UK podiatry journals continued to emphasise the importance of research to the profession [
12‐
14], and the development of a medical database listed journal as a crucial component and indicator of progress [
15,
16]. There is little doubt that the advent of Masters degree programmes in podiatry also enhanced research output, and graduate status has led, inevitably, to further research doctoral degree studies, and opportunities for podiatrists to become full-time, funded researchers.
JFAR is potentially one of the key outlets for the publication of podiatric research, and is one of only seven foot and ankle journals listed in the PubMed database.
Why no case reports?
In our first editorial, we stated that
JFAR would only publish case reports if they "provide unique or important additional insights into the causes or treatment of foot and ankle disorders" [
17]. However, we have since changed this policy, and no case reports will be accepted for publication in the journal. Our reason for this is the success of the Cases Network [
18], an international, open access platform which publishes two journals -
Cases Journal [
19] and
Journal of Medical Case Reports [
20] - both of which, as their titles suggest, exclusively publish case reports.
Cases Journal, edited by the former editor of the
British Medical Journal, Dr Richard Smith, will publish "any case that is ethical and understandable", and the eventual goal of the Cases Network is to develop a large, searchable database of thousands of cases from all fields of healthcare practice.
To support this worthwhile initiative, we urge our readers to submit their case report papers to
Cases Journal. In order to facilitate
JFAR readers' access to relevant case reports, we have established a
JFAR blog [
21], and all relevant papers published in
Cases Journal or
Journal of Medical Case Reports are now linked to the main
JFAR webpage. At the time of writing this editorial, 40 foot and ankle case reports had been linked to the website, covering topics as diverse as foot and ankle trauma, congenital lower limb deformities and infectious diseases. Please note that because
Cases Journal is published independently of
JFAR, all submissions are subject to an article processing charge, which is currently £199/US$330/€230/AUD$350.
Why publish study protocols?
Readers unaccustomed to study protocols may have been somewhat perplexed by two papers published in the journal that described the rationale and methods for two randomised controlled trials in detail, but provided no results [
22,
23]. BioMed Central journals have published several such papers, the justification for which has been described previously [
24]. Briefly, study protocol papers serve three main purposes. Firstly, they help researchers (and other interested readers) keep abreast of major studies that are currently underway. This is important, as it may help prevent any duplication of research effort. Secondly, the peer review process of protocol papers can help improve study design prior to commencement of the trial. Finally, study protocols can be viewed as an extension of trial registration, which is now mandatory for clinical trials [
25]. The basis of trial registration is to allow for comparison of what was originally planned by the researchers and what was actually done. This helps identify whether the target sample size was obtained, whether any
post-hoc changes were made to the study design, and whether any unplanned statistical analysis (sometimes referred to as "data-dredging") was undertaken. The overall goal of publishing study protocols is therefore to improve transparency in the conduct of research and to minimise bias. In keeping with the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, all clinical trials submitted to
JFAR must be registered.
Authors' contributions
All authors assisted with drafting the manuscript, and all authors read and approved the final manuscript.