Article in PDF
How to Cite
Citation Manager
Readers' Comments (0)
Audio Visual Article Statistics
Link
to PUBMED
Print this Article
Send to a Friend
Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020
Original article / research
Full Version
A Study of the Interparietal Bones
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Neeru Goyal
Department of Anatomy,
Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, India.
Phone: 91- 9815288988
E-mail: meetneeru24@yahoo.co.in
Background: The squamous part of the occipital bone has an upper membranous part which is called as the interparietal part and a lower cartilage part which is called as the suboccipital part. There is a controversy regarding the ossification of these two parts.
Aim: In this study, the incidence of the interparietal bone has been estimated and compared with the previous observations.
Materials: A total of 150 adult dried skulls were examined to determine the incidence of the interparietal bone.
Results: The skulls which were observed, displayed many variations in the occipital region. In 11 cases, single or multiple separated bones were observed. In 6 (4%) cases, the lower edge of these additional bones was situated slightly above the external occipital protuberance and such bones could be classified as interparietal bones. In 5 (3.3%) cases, the lower edge of these additional bones was much higher (higher than the midline, between the lambda region and the highest nuchal line). These bones were much smaller in size. The latter can be classified as either pre-interparietal or sutural bones or as non-fused parts of the interparietal bone. Further studies are required to clarify the origin of these bones.
Bone, Incidence, Ossification, Interparietal
Introduction
The squamous part of the occipital bone above the highest nuchal lines is developed in a fibrous membrane and it is ossified from two centres. This part of the bone may remain separate as the interparietal bone. Below the highest nuchal lines, the squamous part is pre-formed in the cartilage and it ossifies from two centres (1).
The upper membranous part is called as the interparietal part and the lower cartilage part is called as the sub-occipital part (2),(3),(4). There is a controversy regarding the ossification of these two parts. Ranke (5) described the interparietal part as developing from three pairs of ossification centres and the occasional appearance of an additional fourth pair at the upper angle of the interparietal part. Others (6),(7),(8) stated that two pairs of ossification centres formed the interparietal part and they defined the additional pair as a primordium of the pre-interparietal bone.
Terms like the ‘inca bones’ and the ‘pre-interparietal bone’ have been introduced, but Srivastva (9) stated that there was no preinterparietal bone and that it should not be confused with the sutural bone which developed from its own ossification centre in the region of the lambda and the lambdoid suture, outside the limits of the interparietal bone and with the independent bone or bones developing in the interparietal region, which are actually parts of the interparietal bone. He further stated that the supra-occipital part develops both in the cartilage and the membrane. At the upper margin, the bone which lies between the superior and highest nuchal lines, which is known as the torus occipitalis transversus, is ossified in the membrane by a pair of centres. This segment of the bone is labeled as the intermediate segment, which probably never separates from the cartilaginoussupra-occipital part. The interparietal bone which lies above the highest nuchal lines, develops in the membrane from two pairs of centres, one pair for the lateral plate and the other pair for the medial plate. Each centre consists of two nuclei and the failure of the fusion between these centres or their nuclei with each other and with the supraoccipital part, may give rise to various anomalies in the interparietal region. This is the true interparietal bone which has migrated from the parietals of lower animals during evolution to become a part of the occipital bone in man. When it appears as an anomaly in the form of an independent separate bone, the suture between it and the supra-occipital bone lies at the level of the highest nuchal lines. Matsumra et al., (10) described the presence of the pre-interparietal bones and stated that these bones developed from additional ossification centres and that they could be clearly differentiated from other anomalies (sutural bones) in the lambda region by the shape of their territory and by their location.
In this study, the incidence of the interparietal bone has been estimated and compared with the previous observations.
A total of 150 adult dried skulls were examined to determine the incidence of the interparietal bone. These skulls were taken from the archives of the Departments of Anatomy of Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, the Gian Sagar Medical and Dental College, Banur, Patiala and the Swami Devi Dayal Dental College, Barwala, India. The numbers of the additional bones- whether they divided the occipital bone into 2 (bipartite), 3 (tripartite) or more (multipartite occipitals) and the position of the additional bones- right (dextra) or left (levo) were noted.
The skulls which were observed, displayed many variations in the occipital region. In 11 out of 150 skulls (7.33%), single or multiple separated bones were observed.
In 6 (4%) cases, the lower edge of these additional bones was situated slightly above the external occipital protuberance. Out of these 6 skulls, two cases had a single, big, rhomboid shaped additional bone (symmetric bipartite occipital bone), one case had a single big triangular bone (symmetric bipartite occipital bone) (Table/Fig 1), two cases had a big additional bone only on the right side (dextra asymmetric bipartite occipital bone) (Table/Fig 2) and in one case, bones which were similar to (Table/Fig 2) were seen on both the sides (symmetric tripartite occipital bone).
In 5 (3.3%) cases, the lower edge of these additional bones was much higher (higher than the midline between the lambda region and the highest nuchal line). These bones were much smaller in size. In 3 cases, a single triangular bone (symmetric bipartite occipital bone) was observed, while in another skull, such a triangular bone was found to be divided into two halves by a midline suture (symmetric tripartite occipital bone) and in one case, three small ossicles (symmetric multipartite occipital bone) were observed in the region
The inca bones have been named so, because of their abundance in mummies from the inca civilization which was found in Peru. The incidence of the interparietal bones varies among different populations. It is 15% in Nigerians, 1.2% in Europeans, 0.8% in Australians, 4.8% in north Americans and 2.8% in Turkish, but it has been reported to be as high as 27.71% in Peruvian skulls. Phylogenetically, while it ascended the hierarchy of evolution, the interparietal bone which was a part of the parietal bone in ruminants, ungulates and carnivores, shifted to the occipital bone in rodents onwards to the primates (11).
In the present study, various types of additional bones were observed in the occipital region. Matsumura et al., (10) classified these bones into three types: the interparietal, pre-interparietal and the sutural bones. The interparietal (inca) bones have their lower edge situated slightly above the external occipital protuberance, the pre-interparietal bones have their lower edge situated higher than the midline between the lambda region and the highest nuchal line, while the sutural bones have an irregular arrangement and they do not possess a triangular outline. But according to Srivastva (9), there is no preinterparietal bone and it should not be confused with the sutural bone or the non-fused parts of the interparietal bone.
So in the present study, the additional bones with their bases situated slightly above the external occipital protuberance, can definitely be classified as the interparietal or the inca bones, while the rest (having their lower edge situated higher than the midline between the lambda region and the highest nuchal line) fall under the category of the pre-interparietal bone according to Matsumura et al., (10) and also under the category of the sutural bones or the non-fused parts of the interparietal bone, according to Srivatava (9). Further studies on the development of these bones are required to clarify the origin of these additional bones in the occipital region.
Date of Submission: Nov 22, 2011
Date of Peer Review: Jan 27, 2012
Date of Acceptance: Apr 10, 2012
Date of Publishing: Jun 22, 2012
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com