From time to time, articles published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open generate strong reactions from our readership. I want to acknowledge that directly. We hear those perspectives, and they matter. Some readers felt that aspects of the language and framing in a recent publication extended beyond what they viewed as appropriate scientific and clinical context. Those concerns were taken seriously and reviewed carefully. For some readers, the concerns raised were not simply academic or editorial, but deeply personal, and I recognize that as well. As a journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, we have an obligation to our members and to the broader scientific community to approach these situations fairly and with care. As an international journal, we serve readers from many different backgrounds and viewpoints. Our mission is to bring peer-reviewed research in plastic and reconstructive surgery to a global audience for the benefit of patients, surgeons, and the specialty as a whole. Publishing for a global readership also means recognizing that people will not always read or interpret the same article in the same way. As Editor in Chief, part of my role is to ensure that concerns raised by readers are heard and addressed appropriately. That means approaching every submission thoughtfully and applying the same standards across topics, including those that generate strong disagreement. The work we publish is evaluated on scientific merit through peer review. Trust in the journal depends on approaching these issues carefully and fairly. Scientific journals operate at the intersection of data, interpretation, and real-world context. In some cases, particularly when articles touch on humanitarian crises or other emotionally charged settings, readers may respond very differently to the same material based on their own perspectives and personal connections to the topic. Topics connected to war, humanitarian hardship, and conflict are deeply personal for many readers, including members of our own specialty. Different perspectives on a topic do not, by themselves, make the work inappropriate for scientific discussion, but they do underscore the importance of clarity and care in how that work is reviewed and presented. It is also important to be clear about what the editorial process is, and what it is not. Our role is to determine whether a manuscript meets standards for publication and, if concerns are raised after publication, whether it meets criteria for correction or retraction. That process is not designed to resolve broader societal or geopolitical questions, nor will it always align with every reader’s perspective. At the same time, we are always learning. Feedback from our readers is an important part of that process. As with any scientific journal, we continually refine how we guide authors and reviewers, particularly when articles involve conflict, humanitarian issues, or other topics likely to generate strong reactions. Clarity in attribution, framing, and scope matters, and we will continue working to strengthen those areas going forward. We also believe strongly in the importance of constructive scholarly dialogue. The journal provides established avenues for this, including Letters to the Editor and author responses, so that differing perspectives can be shared and examined in a professional and transparent manner. Those pathways remain an important part of how scientific conversation evolves. There will be times when readers strongly disagree with what we publish or how it is interpreted. Likewise, there will be times when, as Editor in Chief, I have a duty to consider how articles may be interpreted within broader contexts, including the ways in which readers may interpret what is addressed as well as omitted. In those moments, our responsibility is to listen openly, approach concerns fairly, and continue learning as a journal. We remain committed to that approach. DISCLOSURE Dr. Janis receives royalties from Thieme Medical Publishers and Springer Publishing.
Jeffrey E. Janis (Mon,) studied this question.