Published 29 December 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a3123
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a3123

Editorials

Innovations in publishing BMJ research

Less in the print journal is more on bmj.com

The BMJ starts 2009 with new ways to publish research. Sheila Hollinghurst, Paul Little, and their colleagues have worked with us to abridge the economic evaluation¹ of their recent randomised controlled trial of the Alexander technique for chronic back pain.² The full text open access article has already been published on bmj.com, with a video in which the authors discuss the concept, interventions, and interpretation of their work (also available on the BMJ’s YouTube channel³). Now we are publishing the abridged version in the print journal,⁴ with a commentary in our weekly BMJ podcast.⁵

We are calling the new abridged print format for research articles BMJ pico. It is essentially an extended abstract, similar to those published in ACP Journal Club and the BMJ Group’s evidence based journals. The abstract gives the research question, study design, and findings, along with details of funding and competing interests. We chose the term "pico" because it means small (10^–12 in SI units) and is also the name of the widely used critical appraisal tool PICO (population, intervention or exposure, comparison, outcomes), which this new format echoes.

We have been abridging research articles for the print BMJ for nearly 10 years using a process called ELPS (electronic long, paper short),⁶ which has had mostly positive reactions from readers and authors.^{7 8} We believe that BMJ pico is an improvement on this format, and we will be inviting all authors of accepted research articles to use it.

Authors will dictate the content for BMJ pico—they will produce the short versions themselves using templates that we have developed with experts. BMJ pico will allow us to fit more research papers into each print issue, thus offering speedier print publication while saving paper and freeing up resources we would rather spend on improving our services to authors and readers. If we took this approach for all research articles it would mean that authors would not need to work on two long versions of their papers (even the "paper short" version is often several thousand words long), and print readers wouldn’t confuse what they read in print with the full version, as sometimes happens now with ELPS. They should also find it easier to quickly grasp the design and key results of a study and decide whether they would like to read it in full on bmj.com.

Why are we taking this further step now? Firstly, because we are receiving and publishing more research—last year the BMJ’s acceptance rate for original research articles rose from 2% to over 6%—and we want to publish it as quickly and usefully as possible. Secondly, because we believe research belongs online. Many important journals have no print editions, and both authors and readers are now used to the idea of online only publication.

Both online and print versions of the BMJ are going from strength to strength, with readership and usage growing steadily. They serve different functions. We want print readers to notice and appreciate research articles, but we know from regular surveys that readership of research in print is lower than for other sections of the journal and much lower than it is online. We also know that some print readers already go to bmj.com when they need the full research article, and we hope that BMJ pico will encourage more of them to do this. We hope that authors of research papers will be pleased that their articles are reaching a wide international clinical audience through open access, with many extra features including online appendices and other extras, videos, and podcasts, while allowing users to make PowerPoint slides from figures, save articles into online folders and social bookmarking websites, and send rapid responses.⁹

Alongside this first BMJ pico we are also publishing a Short Cuts summary of the study.¹⁰ Please tell us your views—as authors and readers—of both versions, by sending rapid responses about them to doi:10.1136/bmj.a2946. Which did you prefer to read? Which better conveys both the message and the science? Which would you prefer if you were an author of the study? And, more fundamentally, do you think the BMJ would be right to publish only an abstract or a Short Cuts summary of research articles in the print journal and publish the full text online only?

When we launched ELPS in 1999 one reader said "This could go either way. Scaling a mountain and opening the route to others, or landing in the frozen heights."¹¹ We aim to keep climbing and opening routes to better communication of science, and we have many plans for enhancing—with your help—the ways that the BMJ handles and publishes research.

Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a3123

¹ BMJ, London WC1H 9JR

---

Competing interests: None declared.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

References

1. Hollinghurst S, Sharp D, Ballard K, Barnett J, Beattie A, Evans M, et al. Randomised controlled trial of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ATEAM) for chronic and recurrent back pain: economic evaluation. BMJ 2008;337:a2656.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Little P, Lewith G, Webley F, Evans M, Beattie A, Middleton K, et al. Randomised controlled trial of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ATEAM) for chronic and recurrent back pain. BMJ 2008;337:a884.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. BMJ YouTube channel. http://uk.youtube.com/bmjmedia.
4. Hollinghurst S, Sharp D, Ballard K, Barnett J, Beattie A, Evans M, et al. Randomised controlled trial of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ATEAM) for chronic and recurrent back pain: economic evaluation (BMJ pico). BMJ 2009:338: 37. (See doi:10.1136/bmj.a2946)[Free Full Text]
5. BMJ weekly podcast 3 January 2009. http://podcasts.bmj.com/bmj/.
6. Delamothe T, Müllner M, Smith R. Pleasing both authors and readers. BMJ 1999;318:888-9.[Free Full Text]
7. Müllner M, Waechter F, Schroter S, Squire B. How should abridged scientific articles be presented in journals? A survey of readers and authors. CMAJ 2005;172:203-5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Schroter S, Barratt H, Smith J. Authors’ perceptions of electronic publishing: two cross-sectional surveys. BMJ 2004;328:1350-3.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Groves T. Why submit your research to the BMJ? 2007;334:4-5.[Free Full Text]
10. Tonks A. Alexander technique and exercise are cost effective options for chronic back pain. BMJ 2008:337: 37. (See doi:10.1136/bmj.a2946)[Free Full Text]
11. Risk A. From ELPS to Alps [electronic response to: Eysenbach G. From ELPS to HypER-papers: hypertext enriched research papers. BMJ 1999.] www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/318/7188/888#2704.

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

Relevant Articles

BMJ pico for original research in the print BMJ

Trish Groves and Sara Schroter
BMJ 2009 339: b3168. [Extract] [Full Text]

New format for BMJ research articles in print
BMJ 2008 337: a2946. [Full Text]

Networking for health

Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2008 337: a3153. [Extract] [Full Text]

Randomised controlled trial of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ATEAM) for chronic and recurrent back pain

Paul Little, George Lewith, Fran Webley, Maggie Evans, Angela Beattie, Karen Middleton, Jane Barnett, Kathleen Ballard, Frances Oxford, Peter Smith, Lucy Yardley, Sandra Hollinghurst, and Debbie Sharp
BMJ 2008 337: a884. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Randomised controlled trial of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ATEAM) for chronic and recurrent back pain: economic evaluation

Sandra Hollinghurst, Debbie Sharp, Kathleen Ballard, Jane Barnett, Angela Beattie, Maggie Evans, George Lewith, Karen Middleton, Frances Oxford, Fran Webley, and Paul Little
BMJ 2008 337: a2656. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Why submit your research to the BMJ?

Trish Groves
BMJ 2007 334: 4-5. [Extract] [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]

Pleasing both authors and readers

Tony Delamothe, Marcus Müllner, and Richard Smith
BMJ 1999 318: 888-889. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Groves, T., Schroter, S. (2009). BMJ pico for original research in the print BMJ. BMJ 339: b3168-b3168 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Short Cuts and Pico (with layout modification)

Babatunde A. Gbolade
bmj.com, 2 Jan 2009 [Full text]

Both abstracts omit vital data

John S Garrow, et al.
bmj.com, 4 Jan 2009 [Full text]

PICO - a window into the future?

Tom Jefferson, et al.
bmj.com, 30 Jan 2009 [Full text]

Can journal abstracts alone be used for clinical decision making?

Paul Fontelo, et al.
bmj.com, 11 Jun 2009 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>