BMJ  2006;333:366 (19 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7564.366

Editorial

Evidence based publishing

The BMJ's ongoing programme of editorial research is now at bmjresearch.com

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

Science is based on experimentation and data. Yet ironically the publishing of science has been largely based on faith, not study. The evidence based movement is transforming medicine, so why shouldn't the same thinking now transform publishing? At the BMJ Publishing Group we are taking a scientific approach to our own work, in pursuit of our vision of becoming an evidence based publisher. Evidence based publishing means studying the way we do things, objectively appraising our own practices in pursuit of better solutions, and following the same rigorous standards in our business that we demand from the science we publish.

The importance of evidence based publishing reaches beyond business practice. By getting a better understanding and trying to overcome the shortcomings of our own editorial work, we hope to present better science and thereby help to improve the work of doctors. To these ends the BMJ Publishing Group has . . . [Full text of this article]

BMJ, London WC1H 9JR

BMJ, London WC1H 9JR
(sschroter@bmj.com)

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

Relevant Articles

Perceptions of open access publishing: interviews with journal authors

Sara Schroter, Leanne Tite, and Richard Smith
BMJ 2005 330: 756. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Authors' perceptions of electronic publishing: two cross sectional surveys

Sara Schroter, Helen Barratt, and Jane Smith
BMJ 2004 328: 1350-1353. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Does the type of competing interest statement affect readers' perceptions of the credibility of research? Randomised trial

Sara Schroter, Julie Morris, Samena Chaudhry, Richard Smith, and Helen Barratt
BMJ 2004 328: 742-743. [Full Text] [PDF]

Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial

Sara Schroter, Nick Black, Stephen Evans, James Carpenter, Fiona Godlee, and Richard Smith
BMJ 2004 328: 673. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial

Susan van Rooyen, Fiona Godlee, Stephen Evans, Nick Black, and Richard Smith
BMJ 1999 318: 23-27. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Schroter, S. (2007). Response to Scientific journals are 'faith based': is there a science behind peer review?. JRSM 100: 117-118 [Full text]