Opportunities. (Editor's Note).

According to one overused expression, when you give people a fish, they eat for a day, but when you teach them to fish, they eat for a lifetime. Perhaps so. But when you teach them to fish and give them a fishing rod, that is better yet--because then they can combine knowledge with an essential tool. That is what we are trying to do with a new Journal series that debuts this month: Evidence in Practice.

I suspect many practitioners are now approaching the point at which the word "evidence" is more likely than a tongue depressor to provoke a gag reflex. The word has been abused beyond recognition and now has lost much of its utility. As applied to health care in the past decade, "evidence" was a word used to denote data that suggested whether a form of care worked or did not work--that is, whether an intervention had any value. The word was not meant to be synonymous with the presentation of theory as justification (something I prefer to call biological or psychological plausibility). A good story is always nice, but data are better, and that is what the movement toward evidence-based practice is all about: the use of the best possible evidence.

One of the problems about evidence-based practice in physical therapy, medicine, and other forms of health care is that we have dinosaurs--such as this editor--in our midst. My peers and I became practitioners at a time when asking physical therapists for evidence elicited the same response as a holdup: We plaintively held up our hands, signaling defeat, and hoped that that would satisfy our assailants. Times have changed. Despite the fact that many practitioners have failed to keep up with the literature--and, worse yet, the fact that many teachers have continued to educate based on authority and faith rather than on the literature--more and more data have been collected. We lack evidence in many areas of practice; however, we also have a great deal of evidence in some areas. Every physical therapist is obliged to know whether evidence exists and to use that evidence when it can guide practice.

The purpose of our new series is to help busy practitioners learn how they can access evidence in a practical and effective manner. If you also learn something from the answers to the clinical questions that are being asked, that will be terrific. But the main goal of Evidence in Practice is to illustrate how to find the available evidence to answer meaningful clinical questions. In part, we hope that practitioners will see how they can harness their enthusiasm by developing answerable questions and seeking new knowledge. The end result should enhance the science underlying care and, even more importantly, increase the effectiveness of our practice.

Fortunately, we have Dr Charles Ciccone, a veteran Editorial Board member, overseeing this new series and contributing the first installment. His efforts are complemented by a new advisory group of scholar-practitioners who will assist him in the development of the series. We would also like your help: your suggestions, your criticisms, and your contributions. Please communicate with Dr Ciccone and his Editorial Advisors.

While you are looking at the masthead for the names of the members of this new group, you may notice some other changes. As the Journal continues to grow--for instance, we have a record number of manuscript submissions in 2001--we welcome the opportunity to innovate. I have now assumed the title of Editor in Chief. I've never liked this title because it sounds a little pompous, but I have agreed to it because it allows the roles of other vital members of our team to be clearly differentiated. We can now recognize that Dr Irene McEwen, who also serves as Deputy Editor, is Editor for Case Reports; Dr Michael Mueller is Editor for Updates; and, of course, Dr Ciccone is Editor for Evidence in Practice and Reviews. Additional responsibilities will be assigned in the coming year as we add new features and attempt to make the Journal even more responsive to the profession's needs.

In the masthead, you will see another new list: Associate Editorial Board members. Additional members will be joining soon. The group consists of experienced reviewers who have excelled in that role and who now work in collaboration with an Editorial Board Member in our peer-review process. Through this new group, we continue to develop members of our profession in their roles as scholars while we expand our peer-review teams to better serve our authors and readers.

Just as we have always welcomed readers to nominate themselves or others as reviewers, we also welcome suggestions for membership in any of our editorial groups. The Journal is already one of the most inclusive activities within the American Physical Therapy Association, with hundreds of participants, and we believe there is room for even more people to participate and contribute. We look forward to hearing from you.