{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01837440553393861, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0030263726761781237, 'mean_word_length': 5.194109772423025, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 1, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Resident Editors on the Ear, Nose and Throat Journal Editorial Board

The novel idea of including resident members at the Ear, Nose, and Throat Journal was discussed in 3 previous editorials (http://www.entjournal.com/#refs). For convenience and emphasis, some of the considerations and concerns that led to this experiment are reiterated in this editorial which is republished periodically as a call for resident editor applications (and similar editorials are published in the Journal of Voice). We continue to be pleased with the performance of resident members of the editorial board, and we have expanded the program. Traditional medical education provides virtually no formal education regarding publication. Not even basic writing techniques are taught, let alone information about the editorial process or skills required to participate effectively on an editorial board. Medicine would benefit greatly from inclusion of basic writing skills as a required component of medical school curriculum. As otolaryngologists, we have relatively little say in medical school curriculum content, but we do control the education of our own residents. If basic writing techniques were a required component of residency training, the quality of our literature probably would improve, and the percentage of otolaryngologists who continue to publish after residency might rise, as well. In addition to teaching medical trainees how to write, we have found it extremely valuable to provide them with editorial training. Such training improves an individual’s writing, as well as his/her ability to judge the value of published works. Editorial board training should include the development of skills in incisive, analytical reading and critique of literature, of course. In addition, editors need to be familiar with the latest concepts and problems in medical ethics, current definitions of duplicate publication, current standards regarding conflict of interest that might affect writers or editorial board members, political and economic issues that affect publication, problems associated with standardization (even relatively Asimple@ issues such as nomenclature), and various other topics and skills that are essential to the evolution of clinical medicine and science. When we established this program and invited residents to serve 2-year terms on our editorial board, we believed that participation on an editorial board would give residents opportunities to develop analytical skills, not only by reviewing manuscripts but also by reading reviews of the same manuscripts prepared by expert, experienced members of the editorial board. Having served as Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Voice for more than 30 years and Ear, Nose and throat for over a decade, I have been fascinated with the educational aspects of my position. After I read and analyze manuscripts, I select world-class reviewers to assess them. Reading their insights (and seeing what I have missed during the initial reading of the article) has been one of the most instructive opportunities of my career. Sharing a small portion of that experience with residents seemed like a good way to expand their analytical horizons. Our experience has been favorable; but some of our observations have been unanticipated. We were not surprised by the fact that many of the residents’ reviews were insightful and added valuable observations used in the decision-making process. Nor were we surprised that our initial experience was so successful that it led us to increase the number of resident members of the editorial board from 2 to 8. What did surprise us somewhat was that residents’ reviews were occasionally substantially more insightful and extensive than reviews from our experienced editorial board members. This led us to discuss content and quality of editorial analysis, which already has improved the quality of the reviews that we receive from editorial board members. I credit the presence of residents on the editorial board with highlighting the need for these editorial quality-improvement measures. In 2014, we believe that the resident-editors program had been in place long enough to justify asking the 9 residents who had served on the editorial board about their experience. All 9 responded to a questionnaire. Three of the residents had attended an annual editorial board meeting, and all found it interesting and useful. All 9 reported having found their experience on the editorial board interesting and educational and said that the experience made it more likely they would serve on an editorial board in the future. Five of the 9 residents