“There is but one best way” was the credo of Edward H. Angle and, like the US constitution, its authenticity is ongoing because of its ability to change. Fundamentalists might say that the “best way” means there is but a single static “best way” to practice orthodontics and argue for a return to Angle's original thinking. Others will say that the “best way” means a continuous quest for the best way to practice orthodontics and a broader philosophical guide encouraging objective thinking and growth.
The Angle Orthodontist began in 1930 as a living tribute to Edward H. Angle. The journal was to offer a milieu for Angle Society member projects. It is obvious today that the quality of the article (not membership in the Society) is the only criterion for publishing in the journal.
Since its origin, this journal has published a mix of basic and applied articles. The journal is the official publication of the Edward H. Angle Society and sponsored by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation. These groups are primarily clinicians and the journal has emphasized quality research with emphasis on high quality applied research that would be of interest to orthodontists.
In 2000 we began an online electronic version and last year the start page was opened 60,785 times. This means that somebody somewhere entered www.angle.org over 5000 times per month or 166 times a day. While there, they made 486,144 hits on the various articles available. That's more than twice the 2002 totals and involves hits from 31 different countries. Wow! Someone somewhere clearly is interested. It is also interesting that the authors submitting articles do not represent US dominance. Indeed the great majority of the manuscripts submitted are from outside the US. The days of the presumed US hegemony in orthodontics have clearly changed. Orthodontics has become global.
Some journals, by intention or by evolution, have evolved into applied research journals and others focus on basic research. For purposes of this examination, basic research is defined as studies undertaken with no specific application in mind and applied research as studies undertaken with a specific application in mind. Clinical research just involves patients and can be either basic or applied.
We all like to learn things that will help us tomorrow morning in the office. Most orthodontists are relatively practical people intellectually interested in science, but something that can help their practice really gets their attention.
This is just a microcosm of the same competition that exists throughout the health sciences. For example, Congress has almost doubled the budget for the National Institutes of Health since 1999 ($27.2 billion in 2003). However, the NIH is oriented to basic science research as the way to make major breakthroughs. This policy is consistent with the fact that no matter how much money is spent seeking a given application. The answers are likely to remain elusive until the basic science underlying the question is established. The days of accidentally knocking a test tube off a lab bench and discovering a new hormone are over. Research today is a science and uses the scientific method to strive for objectivity.
The Angle Orthodontist seeks good applied research. We are also eager to publish basic research that is fundamental to clinical orthodontic applications. However, pure basic research, however meritorious, is of lesser interest to our readers and we leave this area to journals that are focused primarily on pure basic research.
On the other hand, we also do not give a high priority to publishing applied clinical projects that are simply variations of well-established products or techniques. Product validation is the responsibility of commercial firms and there is always the risk of proprietary interests cherry picking their way through published research to find data favorable to their product. The state of the art is also a factor. One reviewer wrote that, in their view, traditional cephalometric data as a measure of change is fast becoming a relatively obsolete tool and more modern techniques should be our focus today.
Our reviewers are the cornerstone of our quality and we make a major effort to assign manuscripts only to reviewers who have a demonstrated expertise in the area or an area related to the study under review. Much remains unknown and judgments are still very fundamental.
E. H. Angle had it right. There is only one “best way” and we believe that means to advance orthodontics with quality research.