Dear Prof. Paulus,
I am writing to give your Chapter an update on how things are going with Clinical Neurophysiology Practice. Elsevier has now completed all of the networking and web issues necessary for smooth running of our new journal, which is devoted to education and clinical practice in the specialty. As an Open Access journal, all published papers are freely available: you can access the journal at http://www.cnp-journal.com/. The submission and editorial systems http://ees.elsevier.com/cnp/ required only minor modifications to those for Clinical Neurophysiology and there have therefore been relatively few glitches.
So we are now on our way!
Some submissions have been coming in and have gone out for peer- review. We have been able accept fewer than 50% papers, poor science being the major impediment, overt plagiarism ruling out two papers. [All submission are subject to peer-review, and in addition all are checked using plagiarism-detection software, “CrossCheck”, much as is the practice with submissions to Clinical Neurophysiology]. While I am keen that we provide a vehicle for the many sound papers that do not reach the priority level for Clinical Neurophysiology, we will not knowingly lower standards and publish bad science. Our publisher at Elsevier, Peter Bakker, will soon be undertaking a new publicity program to raise awareness of the journal and its focus.
I would appreciate your passing this message on to the member Societies in your Chapter to encourage them to consider this new IFCN journal, and your mentioning the journal in your newsletters. If colleagues are debating practice-relevant topics and if the topic would benefit from wider exposure, the journal would be an appropriate forum. We believe that reports of cases that have been worked up well neurophysiologically can illustrate the place of neurophysiological testing in clinical practice, and can be both interesting and educational. In addition, before procedures can enter clinical practice, they require validation by different authorities. “Novelty” is therefore not as relevant for us as for a research-orientated journal. Studies reporting normative data are welcome.
David Burke, MD, DSc
Editor-in-Chief, Clinical Neurophysiology Practice