A founding principle of ASBMR is to provide a single forum where basic and clinical scientists can exchange the latest research findings in bone and mineral metabolism and promote the translation of this science into clinical practice. This ''big tent'' philosophy, a term used in political circles to bring together people with a broad variety of political ideologies, is reflected in the pages of the JBMR, where we publish the most meritorious papers on both clinical and basic topics. Because we serve both basic and clinical sciences, it is not surprising that ASMBR members query us from time to time about the balance between basic and clinical articles in the JBMR. Clinical scientists sometimes comment that the journal is too heavily focused on basic science, and basic scientists have opined that the journal is too heavily focused on clinical science. In view of these different perceptions, we decided to analyze our recent publication record in this regard. We are pleased to share with you this review that extends back to 2005, when the editorial office first began the current system of categorizing manuscripts in the Journal's electronic records.
We need to start by defining what constitutes the basic and clinical categories. Since 2005, authors who submit manuscripts to the JBMR are required to designate the manuscript as basic, clinical, or translational. Clinical articles refer to results from clinical trials and from epidemiology and outcomes researchwork that is within the editorial scope of purely clinical journals, such as the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism and Osteoporosis International. Basic papers are defined as ''wet lab'' studies in bone cells, bone proteins, and hormonal regulatorswork that could be found in journals such as Endocrinology and the Journal of Biological Chemistry. The translational category was added in 2005 to describe research that moves basic work to clinical practice and comprises clinical science components with animals or human subjects. For example, a technique for measuring bone properties, although basic, would be categorized as translational because it has clear applicability to human subjects. Similarly, an analysis of an abnormal bone protein or receptor characteristic of a human disease also might be categorized as translational. There is, to us, more uncertainty in the translational category than either the basic or clinical category.
Given these definitions, and with due regard to some inherent ambiguity, we surveyed manuscripts published over two time segments.