Skip to main content

VDM Changes to a Double-Blind, Peer-Review Journal

Editor's Corner

VDM Changes to a Double-Blind, Peer-Review Journal

Author Information:
Frank J. Criado, Editor-in-Chief
After reading this editorial, attentive VDM followers may find it somewhat contradictory with the “spirit and purpose” delineated in the initial Editor’s letter that accompanied the launch issue in October 2004. Regardless, change is in the air and we will not go back! VDM is going all peer-review, and will immediately adopt the journal format that everyone expects in such a publication. The decision for change was based on multiple reasons. Important among many was the discovery that the scientific contributions received for publications after a short 3 or 4 months outstripped our most ambitious expectations, both in quality and volume. With it, the realization came that it would be unrealistic — if not inappropriate — to expect maintaining such a scientific level and attract original research material using a ‘tabloid-style’ magazine. VDM’s focus and core objectives found themselves, almost immediately, at the center of the rapidly evolving field of vascular medicine and endovascular technology. A re-thinking of its format and ultimate goal was “forced” upon all of us by the very success and acceptance of the early issues. Most significantly, experts’ input and the opinion of the majority of our Board members were all supportive of such transition. My role as Editor-in-Chief will change somewhat as I become involved in the peer-review process. But I intend to preserve a little space in each issue to write about matters of practical interest, new technologies, and the like. I will continue to voice such issues as I see fit. As always, the viability of this endeavor is absolutely dependent on readers’ acceptance and embrace. We welcome your input, comments, and criticism. In this March/April issue of VDM, we begin with a case report by Dr. Shammas and colleagues, describing the successful interventional management of a iatrogenic renal artery dissection secondary to PTA and stenting. Renal artery intervention remains a focus for two additional VDM articles. Dr. Khosla and colleagues evaluate the effect of renal artery stenting in patients with renovascular hypertension presenting with angina or heart failure, finding that it significantly improves clinical outcome in such patients. Dr. Feldman’s interesting and concise review of pressure gradient measurement explores the pressure wire’s utility in renal artery disease. Dr. Arora and colleagues take us into the realm of the diabetic patient undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and offer an in-depth look behind the optimal strategies for treating these patients: targeting the lesion site and targeting the diseased diabetic vasculature. Finally, and importantly, Dr. Diaz and colleagues present an update of their work on the dynamic anatomy of the popliteal artery. As I comment in an opening “editor’s note” to this article, the data uncovered by Dr. Diaz’s group will have an impact not only for interventionalists, but for the R&D work focusing on stent technology for treatment of infra-inguinal disease. In short, this is yet a new beginning! I look forward to your thoughts on this issue and on VDM’s new direction. And I do trust you — the reader — will come to see this publication as an important forum for our rapidly growing, multi-disciplinary field. frank.criado@medstar.net
Back to Top