Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
As a subspecialist who formerly rarely read a generalist
journal, I am a total convert to the BMJ, this treasury of free thinking and repartee. The rapid response section not only leads
to a democratisation of science and medicine (formerly we were
prevented from free participation by the whims of editors), but
unpublished ideas can be circularised, and this can lead to research
and changes.1 Imagine Leonardo da Vinci in today's research climate without a research grant. Many of his ideas would have
been ridiculed as preposterous.
I think a section of "New Ideas" needs discussion, and even a place
where that negative result or study that has never seen the light of
day can be mentioned. I with other colleagues spent several years on a
large prospective study of ploidy in lung cancer, which refuted an
inferior positive study we had published in the Lancet.
Read all Rapid Responses