Much ink has been spilled on the scientist–practitioner gap, that is, the apparent divide between knowledge published in academic peer-reviewed journals and the actual business practices employed in modern organizations. Most prior papers have advanced meaningful theories on why the gap exists, ranging from poor communication skills on the part of academics to paywalls and other obstacles preventing the public from accessing research in industrial-organizational psychology (I-O). However, very few papers on the scientist–practitioner gap have taken an empirical approach to better understand why the gap exists and what can be done about it. In our focal article, we specifically discuss the gap as it pertains to small businesses and present empirical data on the topic. Drawing from our experiences working with and in small businesses before entering a PhD program, we suggest that a primary reason for the existence of this gap is the differences between large and small businesses, and we advance two theory-driven reasons for why this is the case. Next, we compiled abstracts and practical implications sections from articles published in top I-O journals in the past 5 years, then we collected ratings and open-ended text responses from subject matter experts (i.e., small business owners and managers) in reaction to reading these sections. We close by recommending several potential perspectives, both for and against our arguments, that peer commentators can take in their responses to our focal article.

The benefits of employing computed tomography (CT) into the planning process of radiotherapy has been well established over the last 20 years. The cross sectional images provide invaluable information that enable clinicians to plan patients treatment with confidence. More recently there has been the development of the CT-simulator (CT-sim), however its place in the clinical setting has still to be established.

One of the most anticipated questions is “will the CT-simulator replace the present conventional treatment simulator as a tool for simulation?” There appear to be tremendous reasons why it should, but there are also many issues that need to be addressed.

This discussions aims to critically assess the practical and technical aspects of the new technology, by means of reviewing published literature. The aim is to decipher whether its introduction into the planning process is realistic and appropriate for all radiotherapy patients, and whether it has the possibility to replace the treatment simulator.

Issues concerned with image production, simulation (virtual), planning, cost, quality assurance (QA) and patient criteria (i.e. radical and palliative patients) have been reviewed. The Study concludes that the CT-sim has the realistic possibility to dramatically improve the treatment intent of all radiotherapy patients. Although there are situations where the treatment simulator appears to supersede the CT-sim, there still appears to be a place for it within the planning process.