The last year has been a very busy one for the BMB.  We have published 140 articles online, which is over twice the publication rate of the previous year.  This reflects the increase in the submission rates and Springer's view that papers should be published online as quickly as possible.  In addition, the entire archive of the Bulletin of Mathematical Biology is now available on the Springer website for the journal, digitized back to Vol. 1, No. 1, published in 1939

Chaplain, M. A. J.

Dosanjh, A.

Maini, P. K.

English

Mathematical Institute Eprints Archive

Bulletin of Mathematical Biology (2007) 69: 1–1
DOI 10.1007/s11538-006-9191-8
EDITORIAL
Editorial
Published online: 13 January 2006
C© Society for Mathematical Biology 2007
The last year has been a very busy one for the BMB. We have published 140
articles online, which is over twice the publication rate of the previous year. This
reflects the increase in the submission rates and Springer’s view that papers should
be published online as quickly as possible. In addition, the entire archive of the
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology is now available on the Springer website for the
journal, digitized back to Vol. 1, No. 1, published in 1939.
You will, no doubt, be aware that the transition from Elsevier to Springer
caused a delay in processing papers and understandable frustration for authors
(and Editor). We apologise for that. However, you will also have noticed that
the past few issues of the journal have been extremely large (including a couple
of bumper issues at the end of the year) indicating that we are getting rid of the
backlog and are now on track again. An indication of this is that there are now,
on average, 6700 articles downloaded a month from the BMB!
In an editorial of January 2006, it was mentioned that to honour the enormous
contribution that Lee Segel made to the BMB and the field of mathematical biol-
ogy as a whole, Springer, in partnership with the Society of Mathematical Biology,
is funding a series of prizes. We now have the details of these.
There will be a prize of 5,000 dollars for the best original research paper pub-
lished (awarded every 2 years), a prize of 3,000 dollars for the best student research
paper (awarded every 2 years), and a prize of 4,000 dollars for the best review pa-
per (awarded every 3 years). It is therefore important when a paper is submitted
that the authors indicate if the first author is a student. We would also like referees
to indicate if they feel that a paper they are reviewing should be considered for a
prize.
A committee appointed by the SMB Board of Directors and the Editor-in-Chief
will be set up to judge and award prizes, taking on board advice of referees and
referee reports. All articles accepted from January 2006 will be considered. The
first winners of the best original paper and best student paper will be announced at
the SMB meeting in 2008. The winner of the best review paper will be announced
at the SMB meeting in 2009.
It is perhaps also a good time to announce that coming soon to “a computer
screen near you” is Editorial Manager, Springer’s online submission and peer re-
view tool. This should be in operation early in 2007 so please consult the webpage
www.springer.com/11538 for forthcoming information.
Philip K. Maini
Mark Chaplain
Achi Dosanjh


Editorial

Maini, Philip

Chaplain, M

Dosanjh, A

Oxford University Research Archive

Lockwood, Diana NJ

LSHTM Research Online

Lockwood, DNJ (2007) Untitled. Leprosy review, 78 (2). pp. 83-84.ISSN 0305-7518Downloaded from: http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/7922/DOI:Usage GuidelinesPlease refer to usage guidelines at http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/policies.html or alterna-tively contact researchonline@lshtm.ac.uk.Available under license: Copyright the publishersEditor’s ChoiceThis year has seen a change in editorial staff. Susan Boobis stepped down from being Assistant Editorafter 8 years in the post. She had notable IT skills and under her tutelage Leprosy Review hastransformed from an ink and paper production into an electronic process from submission to publication.This was very timely and has enabled us to keep pace with electronic changes and we now have freeelectronic access through the LEPRA website. Irene Allen, who has been with the journal longer thananyone else, has now stepped up into Susan’s shoes. This is Irene’s first issue and she has done anexcellent job of marshalling and editing the papers.We have another interesting issue. Johan Velema and Osahon Ogbeiwi have written a useful reviewhighlighting the now good evidence that BCG vaccination gives some protection against leprosy. Thiswas also confirmed in a meta-analysis published last year in Lancet Infectious Diseases. Johan andOshan then take the public health perspective on this finding and argue that leprosy organisations shouldtake a lead in advocating and monitoring BCG vaccination in leprosy endemic areas. Maybe more BCGvaccination is needed in Agra. Kumar et al. report on their follow-up house-to-house survey in Agra,India. They show that there are still significant numbers of new cases and evidence of recenttransmission especially in household contacts of multi-bacillary cases. This continuing high incidence inan urban area where services are provided indicates the seriousness of the continuing leprosy problemand how long-term planning is vital.The single dose Rifampicin, Ofloxacin, Minocycline combination is operationally very attractiveand has been widely used for single-lesion leprosy. However an active follow-up sample study done inBangladesh shows a relapse rate of 5.09/1000 person years which is much higher than the rate found inthe WHO sponsored study. Whilst the rate is still very low it raises interesting management issues; whatshould patients who received this treatment be told, how can we best obtain further data on thisquestion?The clinical features of the interaction of leprosy and HIV are continuing to evolve. Talhari et al.report co-infection in a Brazilian who presented with leprosy as an immune reconstitution syndromeaccompanied by shifting his clinical type of leprosy from a previously treated borderline lepromatous toa borderline tuberculoid.Neural evaluation is prominent in this issue. Temperature perception has perhaps received lessattention than it deserves partly because of the difficulty in standardising measurements. Now astudy from Brazil (Villaroel et al.) shows that in skin lesions patients have impaired temperatureperception with an increased warm and cold perception interval. However a second study by thesame group which compares quantitative thermal testing with Semmes–Weinstein monofilamenttesting shows that both tests were good at detecting nerve damage with the thermal testing havinghigher sensitivity and specificity. This confirms that the monofilament testing remains a useful toolfor screening for and monitoring nerve damage. The reliability of monofilament testing was assessedas part of the INFIR cohort study in N. India (Roberts et al.) in a study which looked at theconsistency of evaluation by trained physiotherapists. Overall their performance was good althoughvariable performance of median nerve function testing was detected. This highlights the need formonitoring and evaluation.Neglect of anaesthetic limbs can end in amputation and Marcos Virmond has written a thoughtfuleditorial about the place of amputation in rehabilitation. He also emphasises the importance of goodLepr Rev (2007) 78, 83–8483prosthetic services for leprosy patients and suggests that this is something for which we should beactively campaigning. This is a need that they share with other patients and is something that will beneeded for a long time.Diana N. J. LockwoodEditorEditor’s Choice84

Editorial

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Mathematical Institute Eprints Archive

Oxford University Research Archive

LSHTM Research Online

Oxford University Research Archive (ORA)