Interesting post, Simul. I tend to agree with a lot of what you say, although, as the deputy editor in chief of ACRO’s new online journal, CURiE (Contemporary Updates: Radiotherapy Investigations & Evidence, on the Cureus platform), I think there are also challenges in strictly avoiding the four least valuable manuscripts as you have defined them. As always, and as I’m sure you’d agree, such things are nuanced. So while I’m sure we will accept some of the “forbidden four,” I assure you our approach with authors is to ensure that our manuscripts, when not publication-worthy when received, are guided to make them more relevant to the everyman (or everyperson) practicing radiation oncologist. At the same time we’ve already begun to publish some things that are off the beaten path, but timely and highly relevant nonetheless. For instance (pardon the blatant self-promotion!), we recently published details of a clinical pathway for the radiotherapy management of oligometastatic disease (https://www.cureus.com/articles/290108-acropath-oligometastases-the-american-college-of-radiation-oncology-clinical-pathway#!/). Perhaps a better example of our publication’s diversity and relevance is an article by Thomas et al, which is an editorial emphasizing the need to remove high-cost supplies and equipment from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (https://www.cureus.com/articles/282828-the-physician-fee-schedule-was-not-built-for-high-cost-supplies-and-equipment#!/). So as you are a radiation oncologist who cares about the quality and relevance of published works, I want to offer you the ability to help ensure exactly that. I believe you would be a very helpful part of the CURiE editorial team, and I’d very cordially invite you to consider joining us! Let me know if you’re interested, and I’ll gladly put your name into consideration at the first opportunity to do so. Thanks for this pertinent, relevant post!
Interesting post, Simul. I tend to agree with a lot of what you say, although, as the deputy editor in chief of ACRO’s new online journal, CURiE (Contemporary Updates: Radiotherapy Investigations & Evidence, on the Cureus platform), I think there are also challenges in strictly avoiding the four least valuable manuscripts as you have defined them. As always, and as I’m sure you’d agree, such things are nuanced. So while I’m sure we will accept some of the “forbidden four,” I assure you our approach with authors is to ensure that our manuscripts, when not publication-worthy when received, are guided to make them more relevant to the everyman (or everyperson) practicing radiation oncologist. At the same time we’ve already begun to publish some things that are off the beaten path, but timely and highly relevant nonetheless. For instance (pardon the blatant self-promotion!), we recently published details of a clinical pathway for the radiotherapy management of oligometastatic disease (https://www.cureus.com/articles/290108-acropath-oligometastases-the-american-college-of-radiation-oncology-clinical-pathway#!/). Perhaps a better example of our publication’s diversity and relevance is an article by Thomas et al, which is an editorial emphasizing the need to remove high-cost supplies and equipment from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (https://www.cureus.com/articles/282828-the-physician-fee-schedule-was-not-built-for-high-cost-supplies-and-equipment#!/). So as you are a radiation oncologist who cares about the quality and relevance of published works, I want to offer you the ability to help ensure exactly that. I believe you would be a very helpful part of the CURiE editorial team, and I’d very cordially invite you to consider joining us! Let me know if you’re interested, and I’ll gladly put your name into consideration at the first opportunity to do so. Thanks for this pertinent, relevant post!