Editorials
Pleasing both authors and readers
A combination of short print articles and longer electronic ones may help us do this
To succeed, journals need to please both authors and
readers. There is, however, a tension between the needs of the two,
particularly when the authors are mostly researchers and the readers
mostly practitioners. Practitioners like research articles to be short and sweet, whereas researchers want Today's BMJ includes four papers where a short version is
published in the paper journal and a longer version in the electronic journal (eBMJ) (p 897-914).1-4 We even have an
acronym for the process: ELPS (electronic long, paper short). This
first effort is an experiment, and we are not yet planning to introduce
this system for every research article Our experiment follows an intense debate within the journal on
whether this is a good idea. The arguments in favour are those we've
already advanced plus the possibility of using the pages spared for
sections that are more popular than research articles. The main
arguments against are that the paper journal is the "proper" journal and that not everyone has access to the internet. However, we
have already said that the eBMJ is the primary journal in
that it includes everything published in the paper journal and an
increasing amount more.5 Paper and electronic versions of
journals will diverge as the electronic versions exploit the full
potential of the internet. The journal Pediatrics, for
example, publishes some studies primarily in electronic form, with only
an abstract in the paper version.
The other major concern is that some people, particularly in the
developing world, do not have easy access to the internet. In the
developed world access to the internet is increasing exponentially, and
soon it will be accessible through television without any need for a
computer. Most researchers have easy access through academic networks,
and those who do not have direct access can easily obtain a copy of an
article from the eBMJ in the traditional way through their
medical library. In fact access to the eBMJ is probably
easier than access to a print copy for anyone who is not a subscriber:
since the eBMJ is free any library or other institution with
an internet connection can access it immediately. Sadly, access to
paper journals has been severely restricted in the developing world,
and in the long run electronic forms of journals are likely to reach
many more people than paper forms ever could. If we need at some stage
to charge for the eBMJ then we will keep it free to those in
the developing world (which we can at no extra cost to us, whereas the
cost of transporting paper is substantial).
A further argument against ELPS is that it may become a licence for
authors to produce interminable verbose reports. This we will resist,
although reports on scientific studies may eventually expand to include
sound, video, original data, software, and more. The challenge is not
just to present studies in the same old way but to find ways to use the
medium to full scientific advantage for both authors and
readers/viewers. We accept that we could do a better job of including
more essential information in paper versions of studies without
necessarily making them any longer. Standard formats As ELPS is currently experimental, we are keen to present papers in
different ways. The shorter versions in this week's journal have been
made shorter by general shortening throughout all the sections of the
paper, and in one case we have prepared two shorter versions, one much
shorter than the other (pp 908, 912).4 We have, however,
debated whether to increase the readability of reports by emphasising
the introduction and discussion or whether to help those readers
interested in critically appraising studies by concentrating on methods
and results. We hope to continue the experiment by presenting further
different sorts of shorter versions. We look forward to hearing views
on the whole idea and on how we might best use paper and electronic
media to complement each other.
rightlyto include enough material for critical readers (often other researchers) to be able to
appraise the study and if necessary repeat it and also, increasingly,
to be able to include it in a systematic review. Journals
have struggled with this tension for years, and often the result
is that we please nobody. Research among readers consistently shows
that research articles are not well read, while many studies have shown
that essential data are often missing from research reports. Now the
electronic revolution offers us a chance to please both readers and
authors simultaneously.
but we may if both readers and authors are pleased.
such as CONSORT
for publishing reports of randomised controlled
trials6should increase the informative value of articles, though they do generally seem to make reports longer.
Marcus Müllner
Richard Smith
© BMJ 1999
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
StumbleUpon 
Technorati What's this?
Relevant Articles
- Innovations in publishing BMJ research
- Trish Groves and Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2008 337: a3123.[Extract] [Full Text]
- Pleasing both authors and readers
- Gunther Eysenbach, Tony Delamothe, Marcus Müllner, and Richard Smith
BMJ 1999 319: 579.[Extract] [Full Text]
- Twins and maternal smoking: ordeals for the fetal origins hypothesis? A cohort study
- Sheila Williams and Richie Poulton
BMJ 1999 318: 897.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
- Multicentre randomised controlled trial of nursing intervention for breathlessness in patients with lung cancer
- Mary Bredin, Jessica Corner, Meinir Krishnasamy, Hilary Plant, Chris Bailey, and Roger A'Hern
BMJ 1999 318: 901.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
- Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics
- Mike Quinn, Penny Babb, Jennifer Jones, and Elizabeth Allen
BMJ 1999 318: 904.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
- Narrowing social inequalities in health? Analysis of trends in mortality among babies of lone mothers
- Margaret Whitehead and Frances Drever
BMJ 1999 318: 908.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Groves, T., Godlee, F.
(2008). Innovations in publishing BMJ research. BMJ
337: a3123-a3123
[Full text] -
Schriger, D. L., Ouk, S., Altman, D. G.
(2007). The Use of the World Wide Web by Medical Journals in 2003 and 2005: An Observational Study. Pediatrics
119: e53-e60
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Evangelou, E., Trikalinos, T. A., Ioannidis, J. P.A.
(2005). Unavailability of online supplementary scientific information from articles published in major journals. FASEB J.
19: 1943-1944
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Mullner, M., Waechter, F., Schroter, S., Squire, B.
(2005). How should abridged scientific articles be presented in journals? A survey of readers and authors. CMAJ
172: 203-205
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Schroter, S., Barratt, H., Smith, J.
(2004). Authors' perceptions of electronic publishing: two cross sectional surveys. BMJ
328: 1350-1353
[Abstract] [Full text] -
Hately, J., Laurence, V., Scott, A., Baker, R., Thomas, P.
(2003). Breathlessness clinics within specialist palliative care settings can improve the quality of life and functional capacity of patients with lung cancer. Palliat Med
17: 410-417
[Abstract] -
Wedzicha, J A, Johnston, S L, Mitchell, D M
(2003). New year: new editors. Thorax
58: 1-2
[Full text] -
Tobin, M. J.
(2002). The Official Copy of AJRCCM Is Posted but Not Printed. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.
166: 905-906
[Full text] -
Mullner, M., Groves, T.
(2002). Making research papers in the BMJ more accessible. BMJ
325: 456-456
[Full text] -
Pieper, K. M., Griggs, R. C.
(2002). New features in Neurology. Neurology
59: 4-4
[Full text] -
Smith, R.
(2002). The BMJ: moving on. BMJ
324: 5-6
[Full text] -
(2000). PubMed Central: signing on. CMAJ
162: 481-481
[Full text] -
Eysenbach, G., Delamothe, T., Müllner, M., Smith, R.
(1999). Pleasing both authors and readers. BMJ
319: 579b-579
[Full text]
Rapid Responses:
Read all Rapid Responses
- From ELPS to Alps
- Ahmad Risk
bmj.com, 3 Apr 1999 [Full text] - Congratulations once again!
- Roberto Pflaumer
bmj.com, 3 Apr 1999 [Full text] - Citing ELPS Aricles
- John O'Keefe
bmj.com, 5 Apr 1999 [Full text] - Biomedical scientific credibility will benefit
- Craig J Currie
bmj.com, 7 Apr 1999 [Full text] - A Brave Leap into Cyberspace, eBMJ.
- Asrar Rashid
bmj.com, 7 Apr 1999 [Full text] - Pleasing both authors and readers
- Indranil Chakravorty
bmj.com, 7 Apr 1999 [Full text] - From medicine to public health: ELPS is essential for multidisplinary work
- Fabrizio Carinci
bmj.com, 7 Apr 1999 [Full text] - Beyond Text
- Ida Sim
bmj.com, 9 Apr 1999 [Full text] - Take a short-cut through the long text
- Arne Linder
bmj.com, 10 Apr 1999 [Full text] - You cannot please all the people all the time
- Tom Oommen
bmj.com, 16 Apr 1999 [Full text] - From ELPS to HypER-papers: Hypertext enriched research papers
- Gunther Eysenbach
bmj.com, 13 May 1999 [Full text]
This Article
-
Extract
- Respond to this article
- Read responses to this article
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me when responses are posted
- Alert me when a correction is posted
- View citation map
Services
- Email this article to a friend
- Find similar articles in BMJ
- Find similar articles in PubMed
- Add article to my folders
- Download to citation manager
- Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Related Content
Bookmark with
What's new
Latest blogs
Find BMJ on:
Services
Tools
Online poll
Resources
Rapid responses for this article
Print issues
