Providing care for persons with dementia presents several serious challenges. Among these is the possibility that a person with dementia will become lost in the community and face the risk of injury or death. Caregivers often cite anxiety about this possibility as a reason for placing their loved ones in a professional-care setting. Our case study and review of research show that all persons with dementia are at risk, regardless of age, past behavior, and sex. Thus, health care providers have an important role to play in educating caregivers about this risk and assisting them in preventing or responding to such situations. In addition, health care providers should ensure that their respective professional-care facilities have appropriate measures in place to prevent and respond to these eventualities. Finally, health care providers can educate local law enforcement personnel about dementia in general and more specifically about research-based strategies for searching for persons with dementia who have become lost in the community.

As you read through any issue of Biological Research for Nursing (BRN), you cannot help but notice the diversity of articles contained within. In this issue alone, articles cover such topics as neurogenesis, cytokines and labor, apoptosis, lung disease in preterm infants, and lymphoblastic leukemia. This breadth of coverage goes with the territory for a journal whose mission is to publish information by and for nurseresearchers working in all areas of biological science. However, it does make the initial assessment of submitted manuscripts challenging. No one editorial board-and certainly no one editor-can possibly have the expertise to critically review material on such a wide range of topics.In July 2002, 3 months after becoming editor of BRN, I wrote an editorial describing the process that we planned to use to find appropriate reviewers for our diverse manuscript submissions (Yucha 2002). To summarize, we select most of our reviewers using the PubMed database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ entrez/query.fcgi). We search for authors who have published in English in the past 3 years on a similar topic using the key words provided by the author(s). For practical reasons, we combine that search with one in which we search for articles that show the e-mail address for the 1st author (i.e., com [ad] OR edu [ad] OR gov [ad] OR net [ad] OR org [ad]). We read the abstracts of the resulting articles to select the most appropriate reviewers and invite those individuals via e-mail to review the submitted paper. Anyone who agrees to review gets added to our database of potential reviewers with subject key words and ratings for timeliness and quality of review. Editorial board members and previous authors are also included in this database, and we use this tool as well to find reviewers.This procedure has been a great success in providing access to an unlimited number of reviewers in a wide range of fields and specialties around the world. However, we also wanted to evaluate how using PubMed to find qualified yet unfamiliar reviewers compared to using known reviewers in terms of agreement to review articles, timeliness of review, and quality of review. Therefore, we selected manuscripts that were considered for publication in volume 5 (July 2004-April 2005) and examined our records.During this time, 41 manuscripts were submitted to BRN that were deemed appropriate to be sent out for review. To find 2 to 3 reviewers for each article, we sent out 270 e-mail requests, averaging 6.6 requests per article with a range of 3 to 20 requests per article.The response to these 270 requests was as follows: 123 (45%) agreed to review, 64 (24%) refused, 62 BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH FOR NURSING

No abstract