Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud: Everyone in science must be active in its process

doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7433.230-b

BMJ 2004;328:230 (24 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7433.230-b

Letter

Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud

Everyone in science must be active in its process

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—Ferriman discusses whether editors have their prioritiesright, raising important issues, particularly for associateeditors of specialist journals.¹ For example, I cannot reviewpapers for the issues raised by Ferriman because there is simplyno time. Much of my time in the editorial process is spent onother duties.

Readers are important in the scientific process. They also haveduties. The best science happens when all of us participate.

To obtain reviewers has become very difficult. Recently, I submitteda paper to a journal and after a considerable time I receivedthe reviewers' comments from the editor. I was informed thatthe delay was due to having to send the paper to six differentreviewers to obtain two reviews. Unfortunately, I experiencethe same problem.

Those in science need to be involved in science. When you aresent a paper for review, please review it; if you cannot . . . [Full text of this article]

John H Lange, consultant

Envirosafe Training and Consultants, PO Box 114022, Pittsburgh, PA 15239, USA johnhlange@worldnet.att.net