Invited critique: fostering a plurality of voices in the burn literature: a concept not common to scholarly consideration of the editorial peer review process.

摘要

In this- issue, Dr. Edelman et al present a very thoughtful look at pneumonia versus inhalation injury as it occurs at the Detroit Receiving Hospital of Wayne State University. Our journal has only recently begun to host their work, and I am personally delighted to see their studies in this forum.1 On many levels, this is a remarkable article and deserving of a second methodical look by the readership of theJour-nal of Burn Care and Resenrch. Undeniably, a substantial majority of academic thought and publications on burn-related lung injury and lung infection have been produced by two-perhaps three-fabled burn units and their academic progeny. Thanks to these pioneers, we all enjoy a great degree of current clinical success. Less readily apparent, however, is the hidden cost of these academic pedigrees on voices offering slightly different points of view.