BMJ  2004;329:741 (25 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7468.741-a

Letter

The evidence base for shaken baby syndrome

Meaning of signature must be made explicit

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

EDITOR—Reece et al's response to the editorial of Geddes and Plunkett claims to be a response of "106 doctors."^{1 2} What, precisely, do the 106 signatures attached to this letter signify? That all had reviewed the letter and were in full agreement with the entire content? That they agreed in general with the thrust of the letter? Or was this more a show of solidarity on the part of doctors who care deeply about the risks of shaking on children?

This needs clarification if the signatures are to carry any weight whatsoever. Science—even medical science—is not a popularity contest. The meaning of a signature must be made explicit for it to add weight to a document.

Each signature carries with it responsibilities of authorship. Reece's letter declared no competing interests, but all signatories would need to comply for this to be true.

Six of the signatories (Levin, Chadwick, Alexander, . . . [Full text of this article]

-->

Mosman, NSW 2088, Australia drmark@bigpond.net.au

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

The evidence base for shaken baby syndrome: Response to editorial from 106 doctors

Robert M Reece
BMJ 2004 328: 1316-1317. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

The evidence base for shaken baby syndrome

J F Geddes and J Plunkett
BMJ 2004 328: 719-720. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Donhoe Letter: Requires Correction

Marilyn Sandberg
bmj.com, 30 Sep 2004 [Full text]

Sandberg Letter: Requires Correction

Brian Morgan
bmj.com, 30 Sep 2004 [Full text]

Re: Donhoe Letter: Requires Correction

Mark J Donohoe
bmj.com, 29 Oct 2004 [Full text]