When I assumed the editorship of the Applied Biornaterials section of the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research two years ago, I anticipated that the article-reviewing process would be relatively simple: I would simply submit all papers to two reviewers and follow their judgment, assuming they agreed, either to publish or not to publish. If the reviewers disagreed, I could submit the manuscript to a third reviewer to "break the tie."
This procedure works most of the time. Indeed, it would work all the time if it were not for my propensity to inject my own opinions into the process. Not only do I possess a unique set of knowledge and experience in the field of applied biomaterials, but I like to believe that I was appointed editor by the Council of the Society for Biomaterials at least partly because of these very attributes. Thus it should surprise no one to learn that I occasionally find myself in disagreement with the reviewers' final judgment.
This raises a dilemma: What should I do when such a situation arises? After considerable soul searching, I have decided that since a major objective of the scientific community is to disseminate knowledge, in borderline situations it is better to opt for publishing the article in question and allow the reader to decide. Surely this journal's highly educated and informed readership are perfectly capable of determining for themselves the validity of a given result or problem-solving approach.
What this is all leading up to is this: the issue of Applied Biornaterials that you are holding in your hand contains an inordinate number of controversial articles. In each instance you, the reader, must render unto yourself the final judgment. Furthermore, I encourage you to communicate with the authors, the editor, and our reviewers through our "Letters to the Editor" column. Only through this free interchange of ideas will our knowledge and practice of applied biomaterials advance beyond the narrow confines of accepted dogma.