The RBO turns 50 and gets a present

A RBO faz 50 anos e ganha um presente This year, the RBO will be 50 years old! The history of the RBO began in 1965. After a difficult start led by Marcio Ibrain, it was kept going for a long time through the dedication of our dearly missed friend, Donato, who was followed by Giesta. This history has already been narrated in this space. We started our activity in the RBO in 2009, nominated by the administration of Romeu Krause. In the first editorial of our administration, Krause called on us to have the pioneering spirit of Marcio, the dedication of Donato and the seriousness of Giesta, in our duties as the new editor of the RBO. On that occasion, we had eight studies to organize for the first issue. However, our publishing house, which depended on Mr. Katayama, the traditional publisher of RBO, was closing down its activities. We had a meeting in Rio de Janeiro (which at that time was where the journal was based) with Giesta, who kindly familiarized us with the problems that we would have to deal with. With unrestricted support from the Krause administration, we contracted a publishing house, Atha Comunicação e Edi-tora Ltda, and we designed the format of the RBO, now to be based at the office of the Brazilian Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology (SBOT). We envisaged a bimonthly journal, with review, updating and original articles, case reports and technical notes. We contacted our indexing database (SciELO) and determined what the minimum size for the RBO should be. The RBO would have six issues per year, with a minimum of 60 original articles, and it would be necessary to define an editorial body that would be renewed annually, with members representing the entire country. The studies would require analysis by at least two editors, in addition to the assessment made by the editor-in-chief, a practice that was already in place during the Giesta administration. Initially, there was a lack of studies and we had difficulty in editing the first issues, which we frequently completed through commissioning updating texts from several colleagues. In our first year, our rejection rate among the studies submitted was 17%. We traveled to some other states around this country and spoke at several congresses to publicize the RBO and to seek to demonstrate how scientific studies were compiled. We could see that large numbers of possible …