The last six months have flown by since taking over the reins from Dr. Hirschmann. By now I hope you have seen the new front cover page showing a variety of investigation techniques.

Other changes are less obvious but will have a greater impact on the journal such as the electronic review process with feedback to authors. Almost all submissions are now received by e-mail as attachment files that greatly speeds up the review and publishing processes.

Approximately 50% of manuscripts are received, reviewed, revised, and accepted within a 3-month period. The manuscripts are often delayed because the authors fail to read the Instructions to Authors available at . In order to increase your chances of receiving a good review I will normally return your manuscript to you for changes before sending it to the reviewers. The most frequent problems are:

1. An abstract that is too short or too long. The former does not contain sufficient information to allow a potential reader to make an informed decision regarding the benefit of reading your paper. Remember, none of us have enough time and your paper will not be read unless it seems to offer valuable material. Abstracts that are over 250 words will be truncated by PubMed, possibly losing part of your results and conclusions.
2. Introductions need to be only three paragraphs explaining what is known, what is unknown, and the aims of your research. Readers are expected to have a good general knowledge of maxillofacial radiography and radiology. Therefore it is unnecessary to explain common techniques in detail. A few lines stating the technique of interest and two to five key references is enough to inform the reader. Unless the paper is a review article, authors should restrict the references to 20 or less.
3. Materials and methods. The guiding principle is to give sufficient detail so that another person or team can reproduce your method to confirm the findings.
4. Statistical methods. Most of us are uncomfortable with statistics as our training in the biological sciences does not require us to routinely use statistics. Therefore you are encouraged to seek advice from a statistician before you perform your experimental work. If a manuscript does not have the statistical power to support the author's conclusions the paper will automatically be downgraded to a Short Communication or a Technical Report. In future all research papers will be headed RESEARCH to distinguish them from other categories.
5. Results. Some authors have difficulty organising their material into the correct order in the manuscript. Results should not be given in the Method or the Discussion.
6. Discussion. Please stick to the facts and do not make vague claims for success or wide application of your findings when the results do not support this. The reviewers are very skilled in determining fact from fiction.
7. References. The journal has a publication style that is described in detail in the Instructions to Authors. It is very apparent to the reviewers when a paper has been rejected from another journal and the reference style has not been changed. Reviewers often comment on this and it is more likely to produce a rejection since it questions the author's attention to detail that is critical in any piece of scientific work. At the very least the author will have to correct the references before the paper will be accepted so you will reduce delays by getting it right the first time.
8. Figures. Please do not send these as embedded illustrations in your text file but as separate JPG or TIF files. Manuscripts will be returned to you if separate illustration files are not supplied.
   Generally the quality of first time submissions is good but 90% will receive an initial reject but resubmit evaluation due to the above problems. When resubmitting please provide a detailed list of your responses to the reviewers' comments with a matching list of numbers to reduce the time it takes for me to check that the changes have been made. In order to assist authors I will be sending electronically to them a copy of their final edited accepted manuscript with the changes visible in color. I hope this will reduce in future the number of revisions that are required and the amount of Editorial time, which includes the Editorial Board members. Each reviewer now checks the references for errors and this is an area where authors can reduce the time it takes by supplying correct references and formats.

In summary, our journal is a collaborative effort by a team of volunteers who all have full-time jobs. We want to produce a journal of the highest scientific quality since this reflects well on IADMFR. However, we have very limited resources with the only paid person being my part-time Editorial Assistant, Phillip Whitt, who does wonders in 12 hours per week. The Nature Publishing Group are very professional publishers as seen by the paper journal and the website. I have recently enlarged my editorial support by appointing three Associate Editors so we cover the American, European, and Asian continents. Now I call on the authors who provide the material for our journal to help us by following the guidelines above and making our task easier.