Adds, Philip J.

ABSTRACT At the 42nd Annual Meeting of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists (AACA) in Bellevue, Washington, June 2025, two inaugural events—the Clinical Anatomy Fireside Chat (CAFC) and the Clinical Anatomy Symposium: Head and Neck 2025 (CAS)—fostered rich dialogue on the evolving role and operational definition of clinical anatomy. Experts from various clinical and anatomical disciplines explored the meaning of clinical anatomy, highlighting the absence of a universal definition despite its frequent use in education and research. Through these interdisciplinary discussions, a consensus emerged: clinical anatomy is not defined solely by the possession of clinical credentials but by the integration of anatomical knowledge and clinical relevance, achieved most effectively through collaboration. Clinical anatomy education and research require different depths of clinical knowledge depending on the audience and objective, and meaningful collaboration can bridge gaps in expertise. The symposium further illustrated that high‐quality clinical anatomy emerges from mutual respect and reciprocal insight between clinicians and anatomists. This article presents a consensus statement developed by AACA representatives and invited speakers, affirming that collaboration is not only foundational to the practice of clinical anatomy but also fundamental to its definition. These conclusions aim to guide future educational models, research strategies, and interdisciplinary partnerships in the field of clinical anatomy.

ABSTRACTMost discussions about discrimination and bias in anatomical research papers have been limited to terminology relating to race/ethnicity and gender/sex. However, as editors of anatomical journals, the authors of this article have frequently observed broader instances of potential discrimination and bias within anatomical research. These often stem from differences among authors' backgrounds, traditions, cultures, religions, provenance/origins, and workplace affiliations. In view of the limited discourse on this topic, we seek in this article to establish a consensus among editors of anatomical journals and to propose new Guidelines Against Discrimination and Bias in Anatomical Research Papers (GDBARP). We have identified multiple factors that can contribute to discrimination and bias, underscoring the need for greater awareness and proactive measures. It is imperative in anatomical research to respect authors, reviewers, and editors regardless of their background, culture, traditions, sex, ethnicity, language, religion, or ethical perspectives.