BMJ 1994;308:1582-1583 (18 June)
Editorials
The role of letters in reviewing research
The publication of medical research is prone to error. Misuse of statistics, selective citation of published work, misquotation of references, and overenthusiasm in the search for positive findings are crimes, often committed unwittingly, that can escape peer review before a paper is published.1 Only after publication can a piece of research be exposed to the sort of critical review, by journal readers, that can either establish its place or consign it to the dustbin. The potential of correspondence as a form of peer review is supported by editors2 - the BMJ reserves its letters pages almost exclusively for comment on published material - but it remains underdeveloped and undervalued by clinicians, academics, teachers, and many journals.
In four specialist journals examined by Spodick and Goldberg only 2% of the space was devoted to letters from readers.3 Four general journals gave 15% of the space to letters, but fewer than half . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
Relevant Article
-
The role of letters in reviewing research
- G N Kalla
BMJ 1994 309: 539.
[Extract]
[Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Horton, R.
(2002). Postpublication Criticism and the Shaping of Clinical Knowledge. JAMA
287: 2843-2847
[Abstract]
[Full text]
-
Ober, M., Shohara, R., Rennie, D., Yank, V., Bero, L. A.
(2002). The Criticism Management System for the Cochrane Library. Eval Health Prof
25: 98-115
[Abstract]
-
Dearlove, O., Garry, R. F, Wager, L., Roberts, I., Wahlbeck, K., Adams, C., Edwards, R., Bhopal, R., Highkin, D. J, Horrobin, D. F
(1999). Beyond conflict of interest. BMJ
318: 464a-464
[Full text]
-
Kalla, G N
(1994). The role of letters in reviewing research. BMJ
309: 539-539
[Full text]