International Collaboration and Communication in Rehabilitation Research

Article Outline

• Abstract
• Acknowledgments
• References
• Copyright

Abstract 

Dijkers MP. International collaboration and communication in rehabilitation research.

In his 1956 Coulter Lecture, Frederic Jung anticipated that the artificial language Interlingua might become the lingua franca of international scholarly exchange. That has not happened; English is the language of international science, and the journal of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine (ACRM), Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, plays a central role in the communication of rehabilitation research. This presidential address traces the development of Archives, with emphasis on trends in contributions from outside the United States. Opportunities for the journal in the near future are sketched, as well as the threat to its economic potential created by Internet journals, open-access journals, and the requirement by government and other research funding agencies that there is free public access to the fruits of the research they sponsor. The activities of ACRM in the international arena (including its first-ever annual meeting outside the US) are sketched, as is the potential for international collaboration in rehabilitation research. The internationalizing of ACRM (under a new name) is offered as a direction for the organization to consider.

Key Words: International cooperation, Publishing, Rehabilitation, Research

List of Abbreviations: AAPM&R, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, ACRM, American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine, JIF, journal impact factor, APM&R, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, NIH, National Institutes of Health

IN THE SIXTH COULTER LECTURE, which our colleague Frederic T. Jung, MD, PhD, delivered in 1956, he noted the following:

It is a pity that so much excellent foreign literature is a closed book to so many Americans and that our own language, which is admittedly hard for our own children to learn, should be so difficult for foreigners. Publications in French and German fail often to receive the attention they deserve; the less widely spoken languages like Danish, Portuguese, and Dutch suffer even more, and the languages of large nations like Russia, China, and India, because of the remoteness of their relation to the Teutonic and Romance languages, are considered out of the question. It is getting harder and harder to persuade American students to study even Latin and Spanish, easy and important though they are, and to the American medical student the reading of a scientific contribution in any language but his own is a most laborious undertaking.^1(p15)

This ACRM presidential address focuses on the issue of international scientific collaboration and communication. The topic was suggested by 2 milestones in the history of ACRM. First, the meeting in Toronto is the first time for ACRM to hold its annual scientific meeting outside the United States. (The 1968 business meeting was held in Montreal, in conjunction with the fifth International Congress of Physical Medicine; that year's scientific sessions were held in Chicago. In 1971, the annual meeting was held in San Juan, Puerto Rico.) The fact that it does so in nearby English-speaking Toronto where quite a few of our members live and work does not diminish the fact that this is a significant happening and could be the starting point for extensive collaboration with non-US rehabilitation researchers, even in languages other than English. Second, in a few months, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, the premier journal for the scholarly exchange of information on rehabilitation and rehabilitation research, will again be the property of ACRM only, rather than shared with AAPM&R as is currently the case.

I want to address the twin issues of the role of ACRM in international collaboration and the role of Archives in the exchange of information on physical rehabilitation research. Jung¹ later on in his presentation noted that “journals whose purpose it is to make the results of research available to scientific investigators in other countries now supply the reader with an especially prepared abstract that summarizes the new facts and lends itself to translation.”^(p16) (Jung kept up with his times; the first abstracts [preceding an article, rather than following it like a summary] were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in early 1956,² the year he presented the Coulter lecture.) He continues:

The possibility exists—already realized to some extent—of greatly reducing the labor involved in all this translation [of abstracts]. A new medium of communication in science has been developed, a Latin without inflections, called Interlingua. Based on words chosen so that they will be recognized by the largest possible number of people, it can be read with surprising ease by any educated person in Europe or the Americas. Seventeen medical periodicals now use Interlingua as the second language for their summaries.^1(p16)

Interlingua is an international auxiliary language that was developed between 1937 and 1951 and is the most common international auxiliary language after Esperanto.³ It is the most widely used naturalistic international auxiliary language; in other words, its vocabulary, grammar, and other characteristics are largely derived from natural languages. Interlingua is unusual among artificial languages for being immediately understandable to hundreds of millions of people who speak a Romance language. Jung¹ concludes:

It is to be hoped that the use of Interlingua in this way will spread rapidly… We should [] be prepared to encourage anything that will facilitate the exchange of information generally, help to clarify human thinking, and otherwise accelerate our progress toward better ways of life. The medical publications of the United States should cooperate in these efforts as an expression of good will and a means of contributing to world peace.^(p16-17)

Apparently, the then-editor of Archives or the Board of Governors of ACRM was of the opinion that contributions to world peace were not feasible given budgetary constraints; no articles in Interlingua were ever published. I even failed to identify a single Archives abstract in that tongue. Maybe the board and editor foresaw that international scientific communication would take another direction toward world peace; everyone uses English.

Scholarly journals that wish to reach an international audience nowadays are published in English, with at best abstracts in French, Spanish, or some other widespread language. The lingua franca of international scientific congresses tends to be English, and most do not any longer offer simultaneous interpretation. Increasingly, graduate students, whatever their mother tongue, are required to write their thesis in English to prepare them for a career of publishing on the world stage. Universities in non-English countries that aim to attract international students are switching to English as the language of instruction. There is no denying that English is the de facto language of science at the turn of the 21st century, and my guess is that it will maintain that position for many decades to come.

That does not mean that everyone who uses it for the purpose of communicating scientific findings can display the fluency native speakers show. Even though English is a simplified language when it comes to grammar, its pronunciation, use of idioms, and especially spelling are very hard. Added to this is the tendency of at least American English to use abbreviations and truncated words liberally. I was reminded of this by a Canadian colleague who went through the preliminary program for the 2008 ACRM annual meeting and noted the abbreviations we throw around that are likely problematic north of the border and in other countries. Similarly, English-speaking Canadians use to their advantage an alphabet soup that those of us who work in the US have not tasted.

Those APM&R readers who peer review for Archives or one of the other English-language journals dedicated to the rehabilitation sciences almost certainly have had experience with manuscripts originating with non–English-speaking authors. The quality ranges from a few misplaced idiomatic expressions all the way down to apparent translation by Yahoo!'s Babel Fish program (http://babelfish.yahoo.com/), which produces fishy tales as well as Babelonic linguistic confusion. However, the problematic translation by these authors should be pardoned; if I were to write a scholarly article in German or French, 2 languages of my adolescence, I would likely produce something that would be rated on the Babel Fish end of the scale. Thus, I admire the pure tenacity some of these authors display, running the peer review gauntlet with 3 or 4 resubmissions before the language is tamed enough that the reader can explore the science without too much effort or without being misled.

Long-time members may know that the ACRM journal, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, started out life in 1920 as the Journal of Radiology, which at the time was the private property of a Dr. Albert A. Tyler.⁴, ⁵ The journal changed its name to the Archives of Physical Therapy, X-ray, Radium, in 1926; in 1930, Dr. Tyler gave it to ACRM (then still named the American Congress of Physical Therapy) as a “debt-free, unencumbered gift.” It became the Archives of Physical Therapy in 1938, reflecting the separation between physicians interested in treating acute and chronic health problems with physical modalities and those using X-rays as a diagnostic or therapeutic mechanism. It next, in 1945, became the Archives of Physical Medicine, acknowledging the need of physicians (then still the only category of rehabilitation professionals to qualify for ACRM membership) to differentiate themselves from the emerging allied health discipline of physical therapy that increasingly became independent from physician control. The 1951 “shotgun marriage” between physicians interested in physical medicine and the ones specializing in rehabilitation⁶ (the latter field had grown tremendously with the number of wounded in World War II) resulted in a last name change; in 1953, the journal became the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. However, that was not the last of major life changes for the journal.

AAPM&R was founded as a society for senior physiatrists (all of whom were ACRM members) in 1938 and developed to become a professional society for physiatrists in general.⁷ With the recognition of physical medicine and rehabilitation as a medical specialty in 1947 and the resulting expansion of the ranks of physiatrists, the organization grew quickly, outnumbering the ACRM even when the latter opened its ranks to nonphysician rehabilitation practitioners in the 1970s. In 1986, ACRM, fearing that AAPM&R, with which organization it shared office space and staff, might start its own publication to compete with Archives, sold a half-interest in the journal to the Academy for $10 “and other good and valuable considerations” (R Morgan, personal communication, September 17, 2008). A complex scheme was set up under which each organization contributed equal numbers of senior and subaltern editors, and the editor-in-chief role alternated between the 2 sister organizations. This started the alternation between the Academy and Congress issues of the journal; this designation allowed AAPM&R to have its own medical journal as befitting a growing medical specialty. Over time, the designation became entirely nominal. (Already earlier, in 1973, a document had been signed that allowed AAPM&R to nominate its share of editors, which agreement formalized an earlier, apparently informal, arrangement whereby the Academy had a role in journal editorial operations.) A 3-way contract between Elsevier, the publisher of Archives; ACRM; and AAPM&R, which is renewed every 5 years or so, set forth the distribution of journal costs and royalties.

In 2005, AAPM&R indicated that it was no longer interested in publishing the journal, planning to create a scholarly journal in the area of physical medicine and rehabilitation of its own. The publishing contract that expired in December 2008 was the last 3-party agreement. As stipulated in its original agreement with the Academy, ACRM received back AAPM&R's share without compensation. ACRM in 2007 negotiated a straightforward 2-party contract with Elsevier to publish Archives on behalf of the organization, which is to run from 2009 through 2013. An ACRM ad hoc committee consisting of Archives senior editors and ACRM Board of Governors members has been working since early 2006 to plan all the arrangements needed for successful solo ownership and keep the revenue resulting from ownership adequate for the organization's needs. This committee, originally appointed by our late President Mitchell Rosenthal, PhD, has considered issues ranging from the role of Archives on the international playing field to the restructuring of the editorial board. The financial future of the journal has played a significant role in its deliberations, and for good reasons.

In a grant proposal submitted in 1968 to the Social and Rehabilitation Service in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, ACRM claimed:

Because of the limited circulation of the journal as well as the relatively limited attraction of Rehabilitation Medicine to advertising revenue sources, the publication [of APM&R] requires tight budgeting to avoid a deficit operation; the latter has frequently been the case in the recent past with the Congress assuming the loss. At present, the Editor is restricted to eighty pages of text per issue, and this maintains a delicate financial balance.⁸

A check with the financial reports of ACRM at the time might verify that indeed in those days the journal was the stone around ACRM's neck that threatened to drown the organization. However, in later years, the journal became very much profitable. The reasons for this are multiple. The 7000 physiatrists organized in the Academy constituted an attractive market for pharmaceutical companies aiming to sell drugs. Our partner Elsevier has the marketing clout to push information about the journal to individuals and libraries worldwide. The editorial board has expanded from 1 editor supported by 7 reviewers in 1968 to a body currently consisting of 3 senior editors, an editorial board of close to 40, and over 700 reviewers. This critical mass of editorial and scientific expertise has steadily improved the number and quality of submissions, making Archives increasingly the journal in which rehabilitation scholars want to publish and that librarians want to put on their shelves. The royalties that come our way through Elsevier are sufficient to make up a significant part of ACRM's annual income; without the journal, we would not be able to afford all that the organization has to offer its members. In fact, it would be correct to consider Archives the goose that lays the golden eggs; it has to be placed on the threatened species list because of the new competition and the disappearance of 7000 subscribers.

Those who scan the journal once it drops into our mailboxes know that much of its contents seem to come from non-US authors including authors in English-speaking countries (Great Britain, Canada, Australia), in countries that use one of Jung's “Teutonic and Romance languages” (France, The Netherlands, Italy), and in countries that speak languages far removed from these (Taiwan, Korea, China). Many of these countries have their own scholarly physical medicine and rehabilitation journals. Started within the last 30 years were such fine journals as Clinical Rehabilitation (Great Britain, 1987), Disability and Rehabilitation (Great Britain, 1992), International Journal of Rehabilitation Research/Internationale Zeitschrift für Rehabilitationsforschung/Revue Internationale de Recherches de Réadaptation (Germany, 1978), and Annales de Réadaptation et de Médecine Physique (France, 1982). Older journals include the Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine (Sweden 1969; now the Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine), Die Rehabilitation (Germany, 1962), and Europa Medicophysica (Italy, 1965; now the European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine). It should be noted that whatever the language of the country of origin, many of these journals have published in English from the beginning or have switched to English to reach a wider audience. In addition to these and a handful of other general rehabilitation journals, there are specialty publications that have been started, by and large in more recent years, for geriatric or pediatric rehabilitation and for diagnostic specialty areas such as traumatic brain injury, stroke, and spinal cord injury. Although most of these are US based, some of them are foreign but published in English; all are potential competitors with Archives for top-level research or review articles.

To investigate how Archives has fared on the international market of physical medicine and rehabilitation ideas, I took a sample of full articles published in Archives since its beginning, and the country of residence of the author or authors was identified. (Going back from 2007, every fifth year was studied; for years when substantially more than 100 articles were published, a systematic random sample was taken) (table 1). Figure 1 suggests that although in the late 1930s about 10% of authors were non-US, World War II interrupted that trend. It was not until 1982 that the percentage of foreign articles was over 10% again, and the trend has been upwards ever since, with an apparent decline from 2002 to 2007. Publication rates track submission rates closely, at least in recent years; the acceptance rate for papers originating in the US is only slightly higher than that for non-US manuscripts (M. Vasko, personal communication, June 2007). Figure 2 shows the most productive countries, both before and after Archives again became an “international” journal in 1987.

Table 1. The Number of Articles Published in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and its Predecessors and the Number of Authors by Year^⁎

• 
  • View Large Image
  • Download to PowerPoint

• Fig 1. 

  The percentage of Archives authors who were foreigners by year and the percentage of Gold Keys awarded to foreigners by lustrum.

• 
  • View Large Image
  • Download to PowerPoint

• Fig 2. 

  The percentage of Archives authors by country, 1922 to 1982 and 1987 to 2007.

It is strange to note that ACRM Gold Key awards, which are given “as a certificate of merit for members of the medical and allied professions who have rendered extraordinary service to the cause of rehabilitation,”⁴ have shown an opposite trend. In the early years after the establishment of this award in 1932, a high percentage was awarded to foreigners (see fig 1; the data plotted are the Gold Keys for the index year and the 2 years before and after). However, of the 35 Gold Keys awarded since 1985, not a single one has gone to a foreigner, suggesting that although non-US rehabilitation researchers and clinicians may publish in Archives, the totality of their work is not sufficiently known to the ACRM membership so that they might be nominated for this highest award the organization bestows. Presumably, familiarity with exemplary foreign work, if published in languages other than English, has diminished because of the decreasing knowledge of foreign tongues on the part of US scholars, already noted by Jung. An alternative explanation is that because the US became the dominant force in rehabilitation and rehabilitation research (as in almost all other scholarly areas) more Americans became deserving of a Gold Key.

Physical medicine research likely can be performed in any one country and its results applied to human bodies wherever they reside. However, rehabilitation involves a joining of physical, social, and psychologic interventions and is delivered in a cultural, social, and economic milieu that varies from country to country and that may have major effects on the process and its outcomes. That may mean that rehabilitation research results cannot fruitfully be exported, especially those that address functioning at the participation restrictions end of the disability continuum, rather than at the impairment terminal.⁹ On the other hand, differences that happen to exist between nations in, for instance, the accessibility, quality, quantity, and nature of rehabilitation services offer a natural experiment that makes possible the assessment of the effects of those interventions that we may never be able to compare by using randomized controlled trials.¹⁰ For these comparative observational studies, parallel data collection in 2 or more countries is needed, as in the Collaborative Evaluation of Rehabilitation In Stroke across Europe study¹¹ and the ongoing Improving Outcomes in Acute Rehabilitation for Traumatic Brain Injury investigation.

Apparently, such collaboration across borders is still a fairly uncommon phenomenon: among the 1576 Archives articles (from 1922 to 2007) reviewed, only 12 were truly international, in that the authors came from 2 or more countries. All were published in the years since 1982 and 4 in 2007, suggesting that international collaboration is becoming increasingly common. (An alternative explanation is that the higher the average number of authors per article becomes, the more likely it is that one of them is from a country other than that of one or more of his/her coauthors; when the median number of authors per article is one [see table 1], international collaboration is not likely to be in evidence.)

The escalating rate of publication by non-US scholars in Archives noted in figure 1 is likely the result of a number of factors, including increases in the numbers of scientists worldwide who have learned English (when the first issue of the Journal of Radiology was mailed, German had begun its decline as the language of science); the ease of exchanging ideas, especially now that the Internet makes long-distance communication instantaneous and cheap (Archives, like all journals that switch to electronic submission, saw a significant increase in the number of manuscripts submitted once it started using an electronic editorial processing system [M. Vasko, personal communication, June 2007]); and especially the increase worldwide in the number of individuals who are involved in the creation, translation, and dissemination of rehabilitation knowledge. A cynic might suggest another cause for the headlong rush of non-US scholars to publishing in US journals, the dictatorship of the JIF. As long as granting agencies, university administrations, and others judge the quality of individual scientists and departments on the basis of the impact factor of the journals in which they publish, scholars in non-US, even non–English-speaking, countries will submit their work to US journals because these journals, not their own, are included in the Institute for Scientific Information database on which the JIF is based.¹²

I expect that these trends resulting in high numbers of non-US research articles being published in Archives have not yet run their course. Rehabilitation as a public or private good is consumed where people survive the injuries and disorders that cause disablement and where they (or their society) have the funds to spend on such a “luxury”. Much of Africa already uses English as the medium of education and formal communication, but, for the years I investigated, this continent was the source of not a single Archives article. I expect this to change in the next few decades, just like Korea, Taiwan, and now China have become prolific contributors to Archives in the last 20 years, with surging standards of living in these countries.

Thus, I expect that as long as the APM&R editors are open to reviewing manuscripts written in less than perfect English and are able to maintain Archives' position as the top-rated generic rehabilitation and physical medicine journal, the journal will continue to publish some of the best work of our foreign colleagues, whatever new competing journals may be started. Although APM&R has grown in size over the years of its existence (from 100 articles a year to 300; see table 1), submissions have grown even faster and, therefore, the rejection rate has inched up, unfortunately (M. Vasko, personal communication, June 2007). Maybe it is time to branch out and publish split editions, Archives American edition versus Archives International edition or a translational science edition versus an applied science edition. Currently, there is a “Turkish edition” consisting of a selection of the articles originally printed in the regular English edition, translated and bundled for the benefit of the large number of rehabilitation specialists in Turkey who do not read English or not enough to benefit from the standard edition. Maybe this offers another opportunity to serve the international community until such time that the penetration of English in all nations is as complete as it currently is in, for example, the Scandinavian countries.

It would seem that the future of Archives is nothing but bright sunshine. However, there are some potential clouds on the horizon. One is Internet scholarly journals, journals that never see print but are published electronically only. Many do not charge for either publishing or reading and are pure works of love maintained by volunteer editors with minimal budgets. Because there are no funds for extensive reviewing or copyediting, many of these journals are of poor quality. Open-access journals are also likely to be Internet-published only and provide free access to readers. However, they levy a fee (article-processing charges) on authors either per submission (typically in the $1000–$1500 range) or on a membership basis (for either the potential authors or their employers). As such, they have an income stream that might be the basis for steadily improving the quality of the publication. As of now there appears to be only 1 open-access journal in rehabilitation, The Open Rehabilitation Journal, which had published 6 articles as of October 2008. Some traditional paper journals now make available on their web site, free of charge, older articles that presumably have more archival than current value. The length of the period that is still protected seems related primarily to the speed of developments in a science area.

Connected to and spurring this open-access journal development is the requirement of funding agencies that the results of the scientific research they sponsor, mostly scientific articles, be available free of charge to anyone who can benefit from these fruits. In the US, the NIH has been in the forefront of this movement since 2004. The current law (PL 110-161) states: “The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication …”^{13(section 218)} The law became effective in April 2008. It is expected that other units of government that make grants for research will follow this lead sooner or later (eg, Canadian Institutes of Health Research),¹⁴ and that private grant makers will not be far behind (eg, Howard Hughes Medical Institute).¹⁵ (However, in September 2008, a bill was introduced in the House, the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, that would forbid other US federal agencies to follow suit.¹⁶ It may also undo PL 110-161's directives to NIH.)

Free access to fairly new scientific publications will be a boon to many scholars and practitioners, especially those who are not employed by large universities or health systems and those in resource-poor countries, especially in the third world. It will also enhance the standing of the authors involved; observational and experimental research shows that open-access articles get cited and downloaded more often than fee-access or subscription-access articles.¹⁷ However, publishers of scientific journals have fought PL 110-161 because of its potential for eroding journal profitability.

These developments potentially put ACRM in an awkward position; as an organization that has as its raison d'etre the creation and dissemination of research results, it cannot but endorse open access. However, as the owner of a journal that is producing significant income from the sale of scientific information, the push toward free distribution of that same information should raise concerns about the future of a major source of income. I leave it to the Archives ad-hoc committee of ACRM to advise the Board of Governors on what is the right thing to do when in the future there is a choice to be made between heart and mind on the one side and wallet on the other.

Maybe a way out of this predicament is to reduce the organization's dependence on the royalties from Archives by increasing its membership. Possibly the best opportunities for membership growth are international. At the current time, ACRM membership is about 800, of whom slightly over 60 are located outside the US, spread out over close to 20 nations. Although there are many professionals in the US who are involved in the creation, translation, and use of physical rehabilitation knowledge and who are not yet an ACRM member, in the end their number is limited. Maybe we ought to set our sights as an organization on gaining new members in foreign countries. We are doing that to some degree already; the Membership Committee has been soliciting for membership all those publishing in Archives, and the International Committee has been distributing brochures on ACRM at conferences all over the world. To my knowledge, Great Britain is the only country (other than the US) with an organization dedicated to rehabilitation research, which leaves a large number of rehabilitation researchers, educators, and knowledge translators worldwide without a professional abode. ACRM could become their home.

Like its journal, ACRM itself has gone through a litany of name changes over the years including American College of Radiology and Physiotherapy (1923), American Congress of Physical Therapy (1925), American Congress of Physical Medicine (1944), American Congress of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (1952), and American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine (1966). Maybe it is time for yet another change to something along the lines of “International Rehabilitation Research Association.” Maybe the Toronto meeting is the starting point for more intensive international organization and cooperation of rehabilitation researchers supported by our journal that already offers a mélange of research fruits from all over the world. It is likely that the language of that renamed and refocused association will be English rather than Interlingua, as Jung might have suggested. That is less important than the opportunities that are open to researchers from all over the world, including our own members, to learn from one another, to collaborate on research and dissemination projects, and to create together a more complete and more sophisticated knowledge base that becomes available to clinicians worldwide to better serve individuals with disabilities.

I look forward to the immediate outcomes of the current meeting, which was organized under the slogan “INTERdisciplinary, INTERnational, INTERactive,” and I look forward even more to a future of meetings together with our Canadian colleagues as well as like-minded professionals from all over the world. The promise of international sharing Jung foresaw has been fulfilled only incompletely, but we are a lot closer than the ACRM of 1956 was. Let's get to work “accelerating our progress to better ways of life” for people with a disability.

Back to Article Outline

Acknowledgments 

Thanks to Alice Ravera for conscientious coding of the home country of the 3796 sample authors who have been published in the selected issues of the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and its predecessors.

Back to Article Outline

References 

1. Jung FT. The sixth John Stanley Coulter memorial lecture: some problems of communication in medicine as illustrated by the Coulter bibliography. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1957;38:11–17
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
2. Winker MA. The need for concrete improvement in abstract quality. JAMA. 1999;281:1129–1130
   • View In Article
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
3. Interlingua. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterlinguaAccessed August 20, 2008
   • View In Article
4. About ACRM - history. http://www.acrm.org/about/history.cfmAccessed August 25, 2008
   • View In Article
5. Cole TM American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. ACRM presidential address (In the clothing of challenge). Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:127–129
   • View In Article
   • Full-Text PDF (407 KB)
   • CrossRef
6. Gelfman R, Peters DJ, Opitz JL, Folz TJ. The history of physical medicine and rehabilitation as recorded in the diary of Dr. Frank Krusen: part 3 (Consolidating the position (1948-1953)). Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:556–561
   • View In Article
   • Abstract
   • Full-Text PDF (2661 KB)
   • CrossRef
7. History of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. http://www.aapmr.org/academy/historyc.htmAccessed October 3, 2008
   • View In Article
8. Gersten JW, Lowman E, Goldschmidt JW. Development of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine into a multidisciplinary professional society. Indianapolis: Archives ACRM; 1968;
   • View In Article
9. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001;
   • View In Article
10. Whiteneck G, Dijkers M, Gassaway J, Jha A. A new approach to studying the content and outcomes of spinal cord injury rehabilitation. J Spinal Cord Med; in press.
    • View In Article
11. Putman K, De Wit L, Schupp W, et al. Inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a comparative study of admission criteria to stroke rehabilitation units in four European centres. J Rehabil Med. 2007;39:21–26
    • View In Article
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
12. Cartwright VA, McGhee CN. Ophthalmology and vision science research (Part 1: understanding and using journal impact factors and citation indices). J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:1999–2007
    • View In Article
    • Abstract
    • Full Text
    • Full-Text PDF (189 KB)
    • CrossRef
13. PL 110-161, Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2764enr.txt.pdfAccessed November 19, 2008
    • View In Article
14. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CIHR policy on access to research outputs. http://www.cihr.ca/e/32005.htmlAccessed September 25, 2008
    • View In Article
15. Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Research policies. http://www.hhmi.org/about/research/policies.html#sharingAccessed September 25, 2008
    • View In Article
16. Fair Copyright in Research Works Act. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6845ih.txt.pdfAccessed November 19, 2008
    • View In Article
17. Davis PM, Lewenstein BV, Simon DH, Booth JG, Connolly MJ. Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008;337:a568
    • View In Article
    • CrossRef