Rapid Responses to:

LETTERS: John McConnell and Richard Horton Having electronic preprints is logical BMJ 1998; 316: 1907 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Dissecting Electronic Preprints

Mahesh Choolani   (23 June 1998)

Dissecting Electronic Preprints 23 June 1998
Mahesh Choolani, Lecturer National University of Singapore Send response to journal: Re: Dissecting Electronic Preprints	Sir, McConnell & Horton(1) have put a critical issue on trial: the role of scientific journals in the Age of the Internet. Hosting protocols, results and preliminary "publications" on an individual or institutional website allows for intellectual discussion and an healthy exchange amongst co-workers internationally. Working by fax or e-mail does not allow for the same level of flexibility or impact. Penalising authors for this practice, by not considering their articles previously hosted on private websites, for print, stands in the way of true scientific progress in this era of Internet Democracy. On the other hand, I agree with Kassirer & Angell(2)whole-heartedly that the indiscriminate distribution of non-peer reviewed articles could have a significant harmful impact upon the community at large. People, be they physicians or the lay public, have a tendency to believe what they see in print, especially if they happen to see it on the website of a reputable scientific journal like the BMJ, Lancet, NEJM or their equivalent. Irreparable damage could be done to the reputation of both, the journal and Internet. In order to resolve this unfortunate but inevitable dichotomy, I propose we classify electronic preprints or "eprints" into 4 categories: 1. The Electronic Draft (E-draft), material hosted at an individual or institutional website that is used for collaborative purposes within the medical community but not for public consumption. 2. The Electronic Preprint (E-preprint), completed journal articles that have been peer reviewed, accepted, corrected and awaiting publication in the hard copy. This material could be put on the journal's website for everybody's consumption and comment. 3. The Electronic Letter (E-letter), electronic correspondence that can be posted almost immediately upon receipt. This keeps the discussion current, topical and vibrant. 4. The Electronic Print (E-print), the electronic version of the paper-print article. Located within the appropriate Electronic Journal (E-journal) with the appropriate (final) volume and page numbers. Far from soon seeing the death of the biomedical journals(3), I perceive an ever-increasing role for them as the last bastion of properly filtered (peer reviewed) information. In a world where any one can post any material on the information superhighway, practising clinicians and researchers alike need an oasis where they know there is "somebody to select, filter, and purify research material and present them with a cool glass of clean water"(4). References 1. McConnell J, Horton R. Having electronic preprints is logical. BMJ 1998;316:1907. 2. Kassirer JP, Angell M. The Internet and the Journal. NEJM 1995;332:1709-1710. 3. LaPorte RE, Marler E, Akazawa S, Sauer F, Gamboa C, Shenton C, et al. Death of biomedical journals. BMJ 1995;310:1387-1390. 4. Smith R. Peer review: reform or revolution? BMJ 1997;315:759-760. Word Count: 390 (less References)