This section entails a departure from the traditional, hypothesis- driven, scientific communication. Why then might we need such a section? The traditional scientific article comprises a hypothesis, an experimental design to test the hypothesis, and results that comprise a clinical or laboratory data set. Analysis of the results then allows a discussion and conclusions to be made, thus leading to further hypotheses or changes to clinical practice that enable scientific progress. The resulting scientific article has a traditional format and undergoes a peer-review process to evaluate its scientific merit, importance, credibility, and the appropriateness of its conclusions. However, progress has several components; an initial one is the innovation that leads to initial hypotheses or to changes in practice that must subsequently be tested. The Webster English Dictionary defines innovation as “the act or process of introducing new ideas, devices, or methods.” Clinicians and researchers do this all the time. Innovation takes place any time when we try to improve on what we already do, frequently in response to a problem encountered in day-to-day work. As the definition suggests, innovation can happen at multiple levels. A team that comes up with an original training module for residents and fellows to enable them to allow fast, accurate interpretation of imaging in a time-sensitive situation is being innovative—not only through the contents of the module, but also through the idea that such a training module may enable more timely workflow in the first place. This new section in Stroke is about these initial ideas, especially when they provide a solution to a bottleneck that otherwise might slow down progress.
Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research
Choose a citation style from the tabs below