The relevance of the tensegrity model to osteopathy: a critical appraisal
the attempt to publish a paper...
Intro. October 2013.
The following is an account of my attempt to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. At the current moment, the article is again back with us, the authors, and due for another revision. Over the past year I have gained an interesting insight into the process of scientific publication; all the theoretical standards and practical implications that come with it. The whole process is much longer, more tiresome and very much less romantic than I would have expected. This text will hopefully serve to inform others about what it's really like:
My first time.
'The principle of tensegrity and its relevance to osteopathy: A critical appraisal' - Nice title? 4.500 words, over ninety quotes, countless hours of work and the thing doesn't even go 90 on the Autobahn. So why bother with all that work? Because it's cool? Certainly not, rather geeky to be fair. To gain respect within the osteopathic profession? There's enough people in my year who don't even know what 'IJOM' stand for, leave alone have flicked trough the International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine. Guess what: Because it's interesting.
The idea:
The paper has developed from my literature review, preparing my final dissertation at the BSO. The question is: What is the value of the tensegrity model to manual therapy / osteopathic practice. Eventually, I will pose this question to fascia and tensegrity experts, and conduct a qualitative grounded theory study, hopefully beginning to answer that question.
But before that, I went through the available literature to see what other have done on the subject and to see, how strong the evidence is to support or refute their claims. In doing so, I discovered an actual need to really discuss the value of tensegrity to practice, and the paper I wrote aims to stimulate the discussion. So far, a lot of people seem to find the tensegrity model interesting - especially osteopaths, since it appears to be quite a 'holisitc' biomechanical model - but nobody has actually answered the question: So what about it? Writing a paper on that subject is difficult as there is a relatively small 'tensegrity-community' and all these people just absolutely love the subject. So anyone writing something a little more critical would have to face those experts; eventually, they will be the ones reviewing the paper for the journal.
Update. March 2014.
Last summer (June 2013), we sent in the article for publication to IJOM. After a long waiting period I received the peer-feedback. As it is custom, I the paper was reviewed anonymously by two independent experts. One seemed to not really like it, the other one was very interested and gave a lot of very detailed feedback, which, over the course of the next months, I tried to work into my paper. At the time, I was already beginning to lead the interviews for my dissertation and I had a suspicion that one of the people I was interviewing might be the reviewer of my paper. Then, slowly but surely, I realised that the 'scientific process' is - as anything else - highly dependent on who you know etc.
Anyhow, after submitting the paper a second time in a reworked version, I decided to withdraw the paper from IJOM and give it a miss for the time being. There was, seemingly, too much to change and I did not like the way the reviewer tried to impose his own ideas upon my paper. The original idea was to write a critical account of what the tensegrity model may contribute to manual therapy practice and how the evidence base for that was, and he would have turned it into exactly that kind of pro-tensegrity thing I tried to criticise.
Now, with more than half a year in-between and especially the submission of the dissertation in the past, we decided to give the critical appraisal paper another go. I reworked it extensively and found it very useful to have worked with experts in the field for the dissertation. I noticed that many of the weaknesses of the original paper were due to a lack of understanding on my part. Also, we submitted to a different journal: the Journal for Bodyworks and Movement Therapies (JBMT). I have received a first feedback and both the editor and first reviewer appear interested. I will, obviously, have to review and resubmit it again - that's how it goes - and I doubt that there will be a decision on the publication of the paper before I graduate from the BSO. However, this time I am much more positive that it will work.
The following is an account of my attempt to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. At the current moment, the article is again back with us, the authors, and due for another revision. Over the past year I have gained an interesting insight into the process of scientific publication; all the theoretical standards and practical implications that come with it. The whole process is much longer, more tiresome and very much less romantic than I would have expected. This text will hopefully serve to inform others about what it's really like:
My first time.
'The principle of tensegrity and its relevance to osteopathy: A critical appraisal' - Nice title? 4.500 words, over ninety quotes, countless hours of work and the thing doesn't even go 90 on the Autobahn. So why bother with all that work? Because it's cool? Certainly not, rather geeky to be fair. To gain respect within the osteopathic profession? There's enough people in my year who don't even know what 'IJOM' stand for, leave alone have flicked trough the International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine. Guess what: Because it's interesting.
The idea:
The paper has developed from my literature review, preparing my final dissertation at the BSO. The question is: What is the value of the tensegrity model to manual therapy / osteopathic practice. Eventually, I will pose this question to fascia and tensegrity experts, and conduct a qualitative grounded theory study, hopefully beginning to answer that question.
But before that, I went through the available literature to see what other have done on the subject and to see, how strong the evidence is to support or refute their claims. In doing so, I discovered an actual need to really discuss the value of tensegrity to practice, and the paper I wrote aims to stimulate the discussion. So far, a lot of people seem to find the tensegrity model interesting - especially osteopaths, since it appears to be quite a 'holisitc' biomechanical model - but nobody has actually answered the question: So what about it? Writing a paper on that subject is difficult as there is a relatively small 'tensegrity-community' and all these people just absolutely love the subject. So anyone writing something a little more critical would have to face those experts; eventually, they will be the ones reviewing the paper for the journal.
Update. March 2014.
Last summer (June 2013), we sent in the article for publication to IJOM. After a long waiting period I received the peer-feedback. As it is custom, I the paper was reviewed anonymously by two independent experts. One seemed to not really like it, the other one was very interested and gave a lot of very detailed feedback, which, over the course of the next months, I tried to work into my paper. At the time, I was already beginning to lead the interviews for my dissertation and I had a suspicion that one of the people I was interviewing might be the reviewer of my paper. Then, slowly but surely, I realised that the 'scientific process' is - as anything else - highly dependent on who you know etc.
Anyhow, after submitting the paper a second time in a reworked version, I decided to withdraw the paper from IJOM and give it a miss for the time being. There was, seemingly, too much to change and I did not like the way the reviewer tried to impose his own ideas upon my paper. The original idea was to write a critical account of what the tensegrity model may contribute to manual therapy practice and how the evidence base for that was, and he would have turned it into exactly that kind of pro-tensegrity thing I tried to criticise.
Now, with more than half a year in-between and especially the submission of the dissertation in the past, we decided to give the critical appraisal paper another go. I reworked it extensively and found it very useful to have worked with experts in the field for the dissertation. I noticed that many of the weaknesses of the original paper were due to a lack of understanding on my part. Also, we submitted to a different journal: the Journal for Bodyworks and Movement Therapies (JBMT). I have received a first feedback and both the editor and first reviewer appear interested. I will, obviously, have to review and resubmit it again - that's how it goes - and I doubt that there will be a decision on the publication of the paper before I graduate from the BSO. However, this time I am much more positive that it will work.