GAMES FOR HEALTH JOURNAL: Research, Development, and Clinical Applications Volume 1, Number 2, 2012 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/g4h.2012.1307
Editorial
Research Health Games: Build or Buy? Bill Ferguson, PhD
S
appears no way to easily segregate manuscripts into categories. But with a closer look, a mode of differentiation appears: There are articles that develop and implement a unique game of the researcher’s design, and there are those that use off-the-shelf (OTS) games such as ‘‘Wii Fit’’ or ‘‘DanceDance Revolution.’’ In fact, nearly half the research we have reviewed uses an OTS game as the research vehicle. This observation is substantiated by the review article of Kharrazi et al. published in this issue on page 153. Such differentiation inspires me to debate the merits and drawbacks of each. What are the circumstances when a researcher can or cannot use an OTS game? Is research using OTS better for broader, deeper, longer studies? Do unique games inspire the development of similar research tools? Is one or the other better for small populations? Or large populations? Are OTS games automatically or even necessarily more valid than those designed for a specific trial? What percentage of the research budget is earmarked for game design? Is it cheaper, better, faster to use an OTS game? You can see where I am going with this. In addition to the Games for Health Journal’s research articles, clinical briefs, interviews, profiles, and roundtables, we need to explore the environment of health games. Thus, we have two opportunities for discussion in future issues, and I welcome you to share your opinions: (1) The advantages and disadvantages of OTS games over researcher-designed games and (2) similar dichotomies in our field that warrant healthy debate. So, please take a moment to e-mail me at bferguson@liebertpub .com and weigh in on the OTS/original design argument as well as to suggest another topic for us to explore in a Point/ Counterpoint format. Thank you and best wishes.
oliciting appropriate articles is a challenge when launching a new publication that features expert content in the form of peer-reviewed research manuscripts and briefs describing clinical applications. Thanks to our Editorial Board and the extended network they developed on the Journal’s behalf, we have received more than 50 papers in the 6 months since we announced the launch of the Games for Health Journal. My fellow editors here at May Ann Liebert, Inc., tell me it is common to reject a third of the articles upon submission because the subject matter is not appropriate for the journal’s mission or audience. Another third or so are rejected through the peer review process, and half of those come back in a revised form. Most of those are eventually accepted. The final third are accepted usually with suggested revisions, and it is rare that they are not tuned up by the authors and eventually accepted. The end result is that roughly half the manuscripts are accepted and in the pool to be published. As the editor, especially in the early issues of a new journal, I aspire to offer content on a broad field of subject matter such as age of target population, issue being analyzed, geographic domicile of the subjects and researchers, and so on. In that regard, I am fascinated by how robust the health games field is becoming. Excellent research and field work are being done in a very broad range of preventive and remedial care topics by diverse researchers from physiologists to psychiatrists to sociologists to physical therapists—virtually every discipline in health-related research is using games in one form or another. Target populations range from infants with potential autistic symptom disorders to geriatrics. We have gotten articles from people around the globe—Australia, Asia, and Europe, as well as the United States. When looking over the compilation of articles we have received so far, the diversity is profound. At first blush, there
Editor-in-Chief, G4H; e-mail: [email protected]
79
Editorial
Research Health Games: Build or Buy? Bill Ferguson, PhD
S
appears no way to easily segregate manuscripts into categories. But with a closer look, a mode of differentiation appears: There are articles that develop and implement a unique game of the researcher’s design, and there are those that use off-the-shelf (OTS) games such as ‘‘Wii Fit’’ or ‘‘DanceDance Revolution.’’ In fact, nearly half the research we have reviewed uses an OTS game as the research vehicle. This observation is substantiated by the review article of Kharrazi et al. published in this issue on page 153. Such differentiation inspires me to debate the merits and drawbacks of each. What are the circumstances when a researcher can or cannot use an OTS game? Is research using OTS better for broader, deeper, longer studies? Do unique games inspire the development of similar research tools? Is one or the other better for small populations? Or large populations? Are OTS games automatically or even necessarily more valid than those designed for a specific trial? What percentage of the research budget is earmarked for game design? Is it cheaper, better, faster to use an OTS game? You can see where I am going with this. In addition to the Games for Health Journal’s research articles, clinical briefs, interviews, profiles, and roundtables, we need to explore the environment of health games. Thus, we have two opportunities for discussion in future issues, and I welcome you to share your opinions: (1) The advantages and disadvantages of OTS games over researcher-designed games and (2) similar dichotomies in our field that warrant healthy debate. So, please take a moment to e-mail me at bferguson@liebertpub .com and weigh in on the OTS/original design argument as well as to suggest another topic for us to explore in a Point/ Counterpoint format. Thank you and best wishes.
oliciting appropriate articles is a challenge when launching a new publication that features expert content in the form of peer-reviewed research manuscripts and briefs describing clinical applications. Thanks to our Editorial Board and the extended network they developed on the Journal’s behalf, we have received more than 50 papers in the 6 months since we announced the launch of the Games for Health Journal. My fellow editors here at May Ann Liebert, Inc., tell me it is common to reject a third of the articles upon submission because the subject matter is not appropriate for the journal’s mission or audience. Another third or so are rejected through the peer review process, and half of those come back in a revised form. Most of those are eventually accepted. The final third are accepted usually with suggested revisions, and it is rare that they are not tuned up by the authors and eventually accepted. The end result is that roughly half the manuscripts are accepted and in the pool to be published. As the editor, especially in the early issues of a new journal, I aspire to offer content on a broad field of subject matter such as age of target population, issue being analyzed, geographic domicile of the subjects and researchers, and so on. In that regard, I am fascinated by how robust the health games field is becoming. Excellent research and field work are being done in a very broad range of preventive and remedial care topics by diverse researchers from physiologists to psychiatrists to sociologists to physical therapists—virtually every discipline in health-related research is using games in one form or another. Target populations range from infants with potential autistic symptom disorders to geriatrics. We have gotten articles from people around the globe—Australia, Asia, and Europe, as well as the United States. When looking over the compilation of articles we have received so far, the diversity is profound. At first blush, there
Editor-in-Chief, G4H; e-mail: [email protected]
79
