BMJ  2005;330:256 (29 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7485.256-a

Letter

Why doctors don't read research papers

Scientific papers are not written to disseminate information

EDITOR—I sympathise with Barraclough.¹ The reader deterring style in which most scientific papers are written has evolved because they are written not to be read but to be published. Authors are eager to get their names in print not because they are bursting to tell us something but for more solemn reasons. Another paper means another line on a curriculum vitae, another step towards a job or a research grant.

In 1976 in the Lancet we missed one of the great opportunities of 20th century medicine when Dr J B Healy, like another Irishman 250 years before him, submitted a modest proposal:

"It seems to me that we should for an experimental period of a year, declare a moratorium on the appending of authors' names and of the names of hospitals to articles in medical journals. If the dissemination of information is the reason why papers are submitted for publication, there will be no falling off in the numbers offered... But if far less material is offered to the journals, we shall have unmasked ourselves."²

No editor has yet been brave enough to conduct that experiment. Not even Richard Smith, who when editor of the BMJ said that only 5% of published papers reached minimum standards of scientific soundness and clinical relevance, and in most journals the figure was less than 1%.³

The reluctance to take up Dr Healy's suggestion confirms the observation of the editor of Nature that scientific papers serve the needs of their authors above those of their readers.⁴ Why else would a journal devote five pages to a paper that reached this conclusion? "In this pilot study, the null hypothesis that both treatments will show equal results cannot be confirmed or rejected because of the small number of participants."⁵

We need to exorcise the myth that, to write readably about science, authors have to write superficially or grossly simplify their subject. The real challenge is to present complexity in an understandable way. Anyone who has tried to do it knows that it is hard work. The writers of too many scientific papers are not prepared to make the effort.

Loxhill GU8 4BD michael{at}odonnell99.freeserve.co.uk

---

Competing interests: None declared.

References

1. Barraclough K. Why doctors don't read research papers. BMJ 2004;329: 1411. (11 December.)[Free Full Text]
2. Healy JB. Why do you write? Lancet 1976;i: 204.
3. Smith R. Royal College of Psychiatrists conference. Reported by Boseley S. Guardian 1998 June 24.
4. Maddox J. Quoted in: Not our style. Communicating science: a handbook. London: Longman, 1991: 51.
5. Lamers HJ, Jamin RH, Zaat JO, Van Eijk JT. Dietary advice for acute diarrhoea in general practice: a pilot study. Br J Gen Pract 1998;48: 1819-23.[Medline]

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

Related Article

Pitfalls on the road to drug safety

Carl Schoenberger
BMJ 2004 329: 1411. [Extract] [Full Text]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

360-degree exposure

Gurjinder S Bhari
bmj.com, 14 Feb 2005 [Full text]