s OUTCOMES RESEARCH GAINS NEW IMPORTANCE in the practice of medicine, scientists publishing the results of clinical trials A in JBMR must gain new appreciation for the elegant scientific methods and principles of analysis that make such investigations credible. Over the past year, during my tenure as Editor of the Journal, I have become progressively more interested in assuring that the clinical research reported in JBMR is of the highest quality. With this in mind, I asked John Feussner, M.D., a leading researcher in health outcomes investigations, to review recent manuscripts dealing with clinical trials that were published in JBMR and to search for areas in which we can make improvements. In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Feussner reports the result of his review. Not to my surprise, he was able to find errors of commission and omission that have affected several of the reported studies in the Journal. Although concern might be raised based upon reaching this conclusion from a review of a limited number of papers, it is more important to concentrate on the correctable factors that have been raised. Indeed, while many may consider this disquieting, I prefer to believe that the gauntlet has been thrown down and that we will respond to the challenges Dr. Feussner has provided us. In this regard, we must modify our clinical trials methodology and adhere to the principles that he has outlined in the accompanying editorial and allow that these principles guide our review of submitted manuscripts in the future. I believe that those of us in the editorial office are ready to refine the review process, paying newly directed attention to the methodological and analytical plans underlying clinical trials, and thereby move the quality of published clinical research in the Journal to even higher standards. The questions remains, however, Are you, the scientist/author and the scientist/reviewer, ready?