Editorial.

Rehabilitation Research at the National Institutes of Health: Moving the Field Forward (Executive Summary)

A new Editor team.

Creativity and Innovation Management has grown substantially over the last couple of years, both quantitatively and qualitatively. From 2016 to 2021, the number of submissions has grown from 287 to 395. Most of the growth was realized in Asia: The number of submissions from that continent increased from 72 in 2016 to 193 in 2021. The rest of the world remained (close to) stable: 215 in 2016 and 203 in 2021. Equally important, the Thomson ISI Impact Factor increased from 1.423 in 2015 to 3.051 in 2021 and further to 3.644 in 2022. This is not where our ambitions end, though. We want to be the ever‐better outlet for authors researching, and practitioners working in, the fields we cover. Editing a journal with the ambition to continuously increase its quality while dealing with a substantial growth requires teamwork—teamwork among the editors and the editorial office, teamwork between the editors and their reviewers and, as surprising as this may sound, teamwork between the authors and their reviewers in a top‐quality reviewing process. The purpose of this piece is to present and discuss some reviewing standards. In particular, we aim to share with our reviewers what we think is an excellent reviewing process. Furthermore, we formulate our ideas about what it is that makes a review an excellent one. The title of this piece is deliberately ambiguous. It denotes that Creativity and Innovation Management strives for reviewing excellence—as in an excellent reviewing process. It also denotes that we reach for the stars and hope to one day receive and, hence, review only excellent submissions.

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation advocates the complete and transparent reporting of research and methods, and is pleased to be part of an initiative to mandate the use of reporting guidelines. This Editorial is a republication of a previously published Editorial in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.12.010), and is republished here under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). For citation purposes, please use the original publication details: Chan L, Heinemann AW, Roberts J. Elevating the Quality of Disability and Rehabilitation Research: Mandatory use of the Reporting Guidelines. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95:415–7.

A content analysis was conducted of articles (n = 1,024) published between 2010-2017 in five major rehabilitation counseling journals, pertaining to transition-age students and youth with disabilities, in order to extend the findings of Plotner, Shogren, and Strauser (2011). Specifically, there was a focus on quantifying the number of publications in each of the five journals to determine how existing transition-focused publications are related to the seven domains within the Vocational Rehabilitation Transition Process Domain Structure (Plotner, Trach, & Strauser, 2012), and to measure the change in transition-focused publications within all five journals compared to the findings of the previous analysis. Four out of five journals showed a slight increase in the amount of transition-focused articles compared to the previous analysis. Frequencies of transition-specific articles by journal were as follows: Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation (16%), Journal of Rehabilitation (10%), Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling (8%), Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin (5%), and Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education (1%). Transition-focused articles were then categorized into one of the following domains: Career Planning and Counseling, Career Preparation Experiences, Access and Opportunity for Success, Program Improvement Activities, Nonprofessional Support and Relationships, and Collaborative Partnerships. Developing and Maintaining Collaborative Partnerships accounted for the greatest overall frequency of each of the domains (n = 21). The largest gaps in the literature were observed in Facilitating Nonprofessional Support and Relationships and Facilitating Allocation of Resources, which had the fewest articles (n = 2, 3, respectively). Aligning and prioritizing the domains, needs, and research efforts can target areas of high priority. The information generated is timely and pertinent for transition services for out-of-school youth and students with disabilities, including the delivery of preemployment transition services. Implications for practice and recommendations for future research directions are presented.

The beginning of 2015 ushers a new era for the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM). The Journal started with its first issue in September 2010, which was published by Springer, the publishing house based in Heidelberg, Germany, founded in 1842. In 2010, there were only 15 submissions to the editorial office, 13 of which were ultimately published online and in print. The number of submissions remained stable over the years 2011 to 2013 at around 43 per year (Figure 1), but underwent a steep increase in 2014 when the journal's first Impact Factor was published by Thomson Scientific as 7.431. At the time of this writing, on February 25, 2015, the Journal has already received 34 submissions since the beginning of January. Even though we are more than delighted by the success of our “baby“ that has now started to walk independently, this fact has increased the editorial workload significantly. We therefore asked Corinna Denecke, who has been part of our clinical research team for several years, to join the editorial office and work together with Monika Diek in answering questions from our authors from all over the world and in handling submissions, an endeavour that embraces checking through the manuscripts with regards to our authors complying with author guidelines. The beginning of 2015 also marks the start with a new Publishing House – Wiley, a US-based company with more than 1500 scientific journals. JCSM will now be published in full colour, both in print and online. The submission software will remain Editorial Manager as before. The Journal publication mode will change from free access to open access, which also means that we will introduce author publication charges to defray the cost of printing and distribution. The journal will continue its cooperation with the Society on Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders (SCWD). The editorial team will strive to continue the work for top quality content in cooperation with authors and the new Publisher. Please continue to give us material to publish to make the world of cachexia and sarcopenia a better place for the good of our patients. We promise to continue to cradle and nourish our “baby“ and look forward to seeing it not only walking, but dancing its first waltz. The authors of this manuscript certify that they comply with the principles of ethical publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia, and Muscle 2010;1:7–8 (von Haehling S, Morley JE, Coats AJ and Anker SD). None declared.

2013: Busy year for Journal of Optometry

Effect size measures were computed for a sample of 100 research studies published in four leading rehabilitation journals. The effect size measures were categorized as small, medium, or large according to established criteria. Analysis of the effect size measures revealed that the average treatment effect was in the medium range (0.69). Further data analysis exposed a statistically significant difference in mean effect size values across articles contained in the four rehabilitation journals. A regression analysis indicated that characteristics of the study design were not significant predictors of effect size values in the 100 studies. The interpretation of effect size measures in relation to statistical significance testing is discussed and the argument made that reporting measures of effect size will assist researchers in determining the sensitivity of experimental manipulations in rehabilitation research.

This article was previously published in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2014; 95:415–417, and reproduced here with journal stylistic modifications and appropriate updates to online information citations under the creative commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.en_US). With the remarkable growth of disability-related and rehabilitation-related research in the last decade, it is imperative that we support the highest quality research possible. With cuts in research funding, rehabilitation research is now under a microscope like never before, and it is critical that we put our best foot forward. To ensure the quality of the disability and rehabilitation research that is published, the 28 rehabilitation journals simultaneously publishing this editorial (see acknowledgments) have agreed to take a more aggressive stance on the use of reporting guidelines*. Research reports must contain sufficient information to allow readers to understand how a study was designed and conducted, including variable definitions, instruments and other measures, and analytical techniques (Moher et al., 2008). For review articles, systematic or narrative, readers should be informed of the rationale and details behind the literature search strategy. Too often, articles fail to include their standard for inclusion and their criteria for evaluating quality of the studies (Simera et al., 2008). As stated by Doug Altman, co-originator of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and head of the Centre for Statistics in Medicine at Oxford University, ‘Good reporting is not an optional extra: it is an essential component of good research…we all share this obligation and responsibility.’ (Altman, 2008). What are reporting guidelines? Reporting guidelines are documents that assist authors in reporting research methods and findings. They are typically presented as checklists or flow diagrams that lay out the core reporting criteria required to give a clear account of a study’s methods and results. The intent is not just that the authors complete a specific reporting checklist but that they ensure that their articles contain key elements. Reporting guidelines should not be seen as an administrative burden; rather, they are a template on the basis of which authors can construct their articles more completely. Reporting guidelines have been developed for almost every study design. More information on the design, use, and array of reporting guidelines can be found on the website for the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) network (EQUATOR, 2013), an important organization that promotes improvements in the accuracy and comprehensiveness of reporting. Examples include the following: CONSORT for randomized controlled trials (http://www.consort-statement.org); Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies (http://strobe-statement.org/); Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (http://www.prisma-statement.org/); Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) for studies on diagnostic accuracy (http://www.stard-statement.org/); and Case Reports (CARE) for case reports (http://www.care-statement.org/). There is accumulating evidence that the use of reporting guidelines improves the quality of research. Turner et al. (2012) established that the use of the CONSORT statement improved the completeness of reporting in randomized controlled trials. Diagnostic accuracy studies appeared to show improvements in reporting standards when the STARD guidelines were applied (Smidt et al., 2006). Early evidence also suggests that inclusion of reporting standards during peer review raises manuscript quality (Cobo et al., 2011). The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors now encourages all journals to monitor reporting standards and collect associated reporting guideline checklists in the process (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2014). Further, the National Library of Medicine also now actively promotes the use of reporting guidelines (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2013). How will reporting guidelines be integrated into manuscript flow? By 1 January 2015, all of the journals publishing this editorial will have worked through implementation, and the mandatory use of guidelines and checklists will be firmly in place. Because each journal has its unique system for managing submissions, there may be several ways by which these reporting requirements will be integrated into the manuscript flow. Some journals will make adherence to reporting criteria and associated checklists mandatory for all submissions. Other journals may require them only when the article is closer to acceptance for publication. In any case, the onus will be on the author not only to ensure the inclusion of the appropriate reporting criteria but also to document evidence of inclusion through the use of the reporting guideline checklists. Authors should consult the Instructions for Authors of participating journals for more information. We hope that simultaneous implementation of this new reporting requirement will send a strong message to all disability and rehabilitation researchers of the need to adhere to the highest standards when performing and disseminating research. Although we expect that there will be growing pains with this process, we hope that within a short period, researchers will begin to use these guidelines during the design phases of their research, thereby improving their methods. The potential benefits to the authors are obvious: articles are improved through superior reporting of a study’s design and methods and the usefulness of the article to the readers is enhanced. Reporting guidelines also allow for greater transparency in reporting how studies were conducted and can help, hopefully, during the peer review process to expose misleading or selective reporting. Reporting guidelines are an important tool to assist authors in the structural development of a manuscript, eventually allowing an article to realize its full potential. *Physical Therapy, The Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, The Journal of Physiotherapy, and The European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine have already successfully required reporting guidelines, one for as many as 10 years. Acknowledgements As this issue went to press, the following Editors agreed to participate in the initiative to mandate reporting guidelines and publish this Position Statement in their respective journals. As a collective group, we encourage others to adopt these guidelines and welcome them to share this editorial with their readerships. Sharon A. Gutman, PhD, OTR (Editor-in-Chief), American Journal of Occupational Therapy; Walter R. Frontera, MD, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Leighton Chan, MD, MPH, and Allen W. Heinemann, PhD (Co-Editors-in-Chief), Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Helene J. Polatajko, PhD, OT(C) (Editor-in-Chief), Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy; Derick T. Wade, MD (Editor-in-Chief), Clinical Rehabilitation; Suzanne McDermott, PhD, and Margaret A. Turk, MD (Co-Editors-in-Chief), Disability and Health Journal; Stefano Negrini, MD (Editor-in-Chief), European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine; Steven Vogel, DO(Hon) (Editor-in-Chief), The International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine; Črt Marinček, MD, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), International Journal of Rehabilitation Research; M. Solomonow, PhD, MD(hon) (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Electromyography & Kinesiology; Paolo Bonato, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Neuro Engineering and Rehabilitation; Edelle [Edee] Field-Fote, PT, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy; Guy G. Simoneau, PhD, PT (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT); Mark Elkins, PhD, MHSc, BA, BPhty (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Physiotherapy; Stacieann C. Yuhasz, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development; Bengt H. Sjölund, MD, DMSc (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine; Carl G. Mattacola, PhD, ATC (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Sport Rehabilitation; Ann Moore, PhD and Gwendolen Jull, PhD (Co-Editors-in-Chief), Manual Therapy; Randolph J. Nudo, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair; Kathleen Matuska, PhD, OTR/L (Editor-in-Chief), Occupational Therapy Journal of Research: Occupation, Participation, and Health; Ann F Van Sant, PT, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Pediatric Physical Therapy; Greg Carter, MD (Consulting Editor), Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America; Rebecca L. Craik, PT, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Physical Therapy; Dina Brooks, PhD (Scientific Editor), Physiotherapy Canada; Stuart M. Weinstein, MD (Editor-in-Chief), PM&R; Elaine L. Miller, PhD, RN (Editor-in-Chief), Rehabilitation Nursing; Elliot J. Roth, MD (Editor-in-Chief), Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation; Dilşad Sindel, MD (Editor-in-Chief), Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

With the remarkable growth of disability- and rehabilitation-related research in the last decade, it is imperative that we support the highest quality research possible. With cuts in research funding, rehabilitation research is now under a microscope like never before, and it is critical that we put our best foot forward. To ensure the quality of the disability and rehabilitation research that is published, the 28 rehabilitation journals simultaneously publishing this editorial (see acknowledgments) have agreed to take a more aggressive stance on the use of reporting guidelines.* Research reports must contain sufficient information to allow readers to understand how a study was designed and conducted, including variable definitions, instruments and other measures, and analytical techniques.1 For review articles, systematic or narrative, readers should be informed of the rationale and details behind the literature search strategy. Too often articles fail to include their standard for inclusion and their criteria for evaluating quality of the studies.2 As noted by Doug Altman, co-originator of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and head of the Centre for Statistics in Medicine at Oxford University: “Good reporting is not an optional extra: it is an essential component of good research...we all share this obligation and responsibility.”3 WHAT ARE REPORTING GUIDELINES? Reporting guidelines are documents that assist authors in reporting research methods and findings. They are typically presented as checklists or flow diagrams that lay out the core reporting criteria required to give a clear account of a study's methods and results. The intent is not just that authors complete a specific reporting checklist but that they ensure that their articles contain key elements. Reporting guidelines should not be seen as an administrative burden; rather, they are a template by which an author can construct their articles more completely. Reporting guidelines have been developed for almost every study design. More information on the design, use, and array of reporting guidelines can be found on the website for the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) network,4 an important organization that promotes improvements in the accuracy and comprehensiveness of reporting. Examples include the following: CONSORT for randomized controlled trials (www.consort-statement.org); Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies (http://strobe-statement.org/); Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (www.prisma-statement.org/); Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) for studies of diagnostic accuracy (www.stard-statement.org/); and Case Reports (CARE) for case reports (www.care-statement.org/). There is accumulating evidence that the use of reporting guidelines improves the quality of research. Turner et al5 established that the use of the CONSORT statement improved the completeness of reporting in randomized controlled trials. Diagnostic accuracy studies appeared to show improvement in reporting standards when the STARD guidelines were applied.6 Early evidence also suggests that inclusion of reporting standards during peer review raises manuscript quality.7 The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors now encourages all journals to monitor reporting standards and collect associated reporting guideline checklists in the process.8 Furthermore, the National Library of Medicine also now actively promotes the use of reporting guidelines.9 HOW WILL REPORTING GUIDELINES BE INTEGRATED INTO MANUSCRIPT FLOW? By January 1, 2015, all of the journals publishing this editorial will have worked through implementation and the mandatory use of guidelines and checklists will be firmly in place. Because each journal has its unique system for managing submissions, there may be several ways that these reporting requirements will be integrated into the manuscript flow. Some journals will make adherence to reporting criteria and associated checklists mandatory for all submissions. Other journals may require them only when the article is closer to acceptance for publication. In any case, the onus will be on the author not only to ensure the inclusion of the appropriate reporting criteria but also to document evidence of inclusion through the use of the reporting guideline checklists. Authors should consult the Instructions for Authors of participating journals for more information. We hope that simultaneous implementation of this new reporting requirement will send a strong message to all disability and rehabilitation researchers of the need to adhere to the highest standards when performing and disseminating research. Although we expect that there will be growing pains with this process, we hope that within a short period, researchers will begin to use these guidelines during the design phases of their research, thereby improving their methods. The potential benefits to authors are obvious: articles are improved through superior reporting of a study's design and methods, and the usefulness of the article to readers is enhanced. Reporting guidelines also allow for greater transparency in reporting how studies were conducted and can help, hopefully, during the peer review process to expose misleading or selective reporting. Reporting guidelines are an important tool to assist authors in the structural development of a manuscript, eventually allowing an article to realize its full potential. Leighton Chan, MD, MPH Allen W. Heinemann, PhD Co-Editors-in-Chief Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Jason Roberts, PhD Origin Editorial ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As this issue went to press, the following Editors agreed to participate in the initiative to mandate reporting guidelines and publish this Position Statement in their respective journals. As a collective group, we encourage others to adopt these guidelines and welcome them to share this editorial with their readerships. Sharon A. Gutman, PhD, OTR Editor-in-Chief American Journal of Occupational Therapy Walter R. Frontera, MD, PhD Editor-in-Chief American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Leighton Chan, MD, MPH, and Allen W. Heinemann, PhD Co-Editors-in-Chief Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Helene J. Polatajko, PhD, OT(C) Editor-in-Chief Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy Derick T. Wade, MD Editor-in-Chief Clinical Rehabilitation Suzanne McDermott, PhD, and Margaret A. Turk, MD Co-Editors-in-Chief Disability and Health Journal Stefano Negrini, MD Editor-in-Chief European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Steven Vogel, DO(Hon) Editor-in-Chief The International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Črt Marinček, MD, PhD Editor-in-Chief International Journal of Rehabilitation Research M. Solomonow, PhD, MD(hon) Editor-in-Chief Journal of Electromyography & Kinesiology Paolo Bonato, PhD Editor-in-Chief Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation Edelle [Edee] Field-Fote, PT, PhD Editor-in-Chief Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy Guy G. Simoneau, PhD, PT Editor-in-Chief Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) Mark Elkins, PhD, MHSc, BA, BPhty Editor-in-Chief Journal of Physiotherapy Stacieann C. Yuhasz, PhD Editor-in-Chief Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development Bengt H. Sjölund, MD, DMSc Editor-in-Chief Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine Carl G. Mattacola, PhD, ATC Editor-in-Chief Journal of Sport Rehabilitation Ann Moore, PhD and Gwendolen Jull, PhD Co-Editors-in-Chief Manual Therapy Randolph J. Nudo, PhD Editor-in-Chief Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair Kathleen Matuska, PhD, OTR/L Editor-in-Chief Occupational Therapy Journal of Research: Occupation, Participation, and Health Ann F Van Sant, PT, PhD Editor-in-Chief Pediatric Physical Therapy Greg Carter, MD Consulting Editor Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America Rebecca L. Craik, PT, PhD Editor-in-Chief Physical Therapy Dina Brooks, PhD Scientific Editor Physiotherapy Canada Stuart M. Weinstein, MD Editor-in-Chief PM&R Elaine L. Miller, PhD, RN Editor-in-Chief Rehabilitation Nursing Elliot J. Roth, MD Editor-in-Chief Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation Dilşad Sindel, MD Editor-in-Chief Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

The mission of the American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation is to promote excellence in education, scientific research and evidence-based clinical practice. ​ American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation focuses on the practice, research and educational aspects of physical medicine and rehabilitation. Monthly issues keep physiatrists up-to-date on the optimal functional restoration of patients with disabilities, physical treatment of neuromuscular impairments, the development of new rehabilitative technologies, and the use of electrodiagnostic studies. The Journal publishes cutting-edge basic and clinical research, clinical case reports and in-depth topical reviews of interest to rehabilitation professionals. Topics include prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of musculoskeletal conditions, brain injury, spinal cord injury, cardiopulmonary disease, trauma, acute and chronic pain, amputation, prosthetics and orthotics, mobility, gait, and pediatrics as well as areas related to education and administration. Other important areas of interest include cancer rehabilitation, aging, and exercise. The Journal has recently published a series of articles on the topic of outcomes research. This well-established journal is the official scholarly publication of the Association of Academic Physiatrists (AAP).

The mission of the American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation is to promote excellence in education, scientific research and evidence-based clinical practice. ​ American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation focuses on the practice, research and educational aspects of physical medicine and rehabilitation. Monthly issues keep physiatrists up-to-date on the optimal functional restoration of patients with disabilities, physical treatment of neuromuscular impairments, the development of new rehabilitative technologies, and the use of electrodiagnostic studies. The Journal publishes cutting-edge basic and clinical research, clinical case reports and in-depth topical reviews of interest to rehabilitation professionals. Topics include prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of musculoskeletal conditions, brain injury, spinal cord injury, cardiopulmonary disease, trauma, acute and chronic pain, amputation, prosthetics and orthotics, mobility, gait, and pediatrics as well as areas related to education and administration. Other important areas of interest include cancer rehabilitation, aging, and exercise. The Journal has recently published a series of articles on the topic of outcomes research. This well-established journal is the official scholarly publication of the Association of Academic Physiatrists (AAP).

The mission of the American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation is to promote excellence in education, scientific research and evidence-based clinical practice. ​ American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation focuses on the practice, research and educational aspects of physical medicine and rehabilitation. Monthly issues keep physiatrists up-to-date on the optimal functional restoration of patients with disabilities, physical treatment of neuromuscular impairments, the development of new rehabilitative technologies, and the use of electrodiagnostic studies. The Journal publishes cutting-edge basic and clinical research, clinical case reports and in-depth topical reviews of interest to rehabilitation professionals. Topics include prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of musculoskeletal conditions, brain injury, spinal cord injury, cardiopulmonary disease, trauma, acute and chronic pain, amputation, prosthetics and orthotics, mobility, gait, and pediatrics as well as areas related to education and administration. Other important areas of interest include cancer rehabilitation, aging, and exercise. The Journal has recently published a series of articles on the topic of outcomes research. This well-established journal is the official scholarly publication of the Association of Academic Physiatrists (AAP).

The mission of the American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation is to promote excellence in education, scientific research and evidence-based clinical practice. ​ American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation focuses on the practice, research and educational aspects of physical medicine and rehabilitation. Monthly issues keep physiatrists up-to-date on the optimal functional restoration of patients with disabilities, physical treatment of neuromuscular impairments, the development of new rehabilitative technologies, and the use of electrodiagnostic studies. The Journal publishes cutting-edge basic and clinical research, clinical case reports and in-depth topical reviews of interest to rehabilitation professionals. Topics include prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of musculoskeletal conditions, brain injury, spinal cord injury, cardiopulmonary disease, trauma, acute and chronic pain, amputation, prosthetics and orthotics, mobility, gait, and pediatrics as well as areas related to education and administration. Other important areas of interest include cancer rehabilitation, aging, and exercise. The Journal has recently published a series of articles on the topic of outcomes research. This well-established journal is the official scholarly publication of the Association of Academic Physiatrists (AAP).

American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation: December 2005 - Volume 84 - Issue 12 - p 1040-1041 doi: 10.1097/01.phm.0000189838.11512.41