Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Do not worry-keep talking
- Jay Ilangaratne (30 July 1999)
-
Smith editorial
- David Woods (31 July 1999)
-
a call for ethics
- Wiebke Arlt (3 August 1999)
-
Re: Smith editorial
- Vasiliy Vlassov (8 August 1999)
-
Views on open peer review
- John Garrow (23 August 1999)
-
Freedom of Speech
- John Hopkins (20 July 2000)
-
Re: Freedom of speech on eBMJ?
- Joseph Christophe Watine (23 July 2000)
-
Re: Re: Freedom of speech on eBMJ?
- John Hopkins (28 July 2000)
|
|
|||
|
Jay Ilangaratne, Doctor
Send response to journal:
|
This is a worrying trend.However,the BMJ editor should not be troubled by the happenings in the american society.The British judiciary is in effect promoting the right of individual's free speech.Following extract(1) just confirms that: "Free speech included not only the inoffensive but also the irritating,the contentious,the eccentric,the heretical,the unwelcome,and the provacative,as long as such speech did not tend to provoke violence" Whether the BMA would agree with such view,however,is entirely a different matter. REFERENCES (1)Redomond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions;The Times,July 28 1999:QBD 30 July 1999 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David Woods, President, Healthcare Media International Philadelphia, Pa
Send response to journal:
|
Absolutely right, Richard. Medical publishing can no longer afford to take an elitist, ex cathedra approach. The Internet has seen to it that information belongs to everyone. In that regard, the BMJ is on the right track; the NEJM was shunting itself into a siding. David Woods |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Wiebke Arlt, Postdoctoral Fellow University of California, San Francisco
Send response to journal:
|
It is highly understandable that Dr. Kassirer cannot sacrifice scientific standards for financial interests. Traditions like peer-review of papers and open-minded, sometimes provocative editorial work are essential for setting high standards. These standards meet the needs of the medical community to identify important achievements. The increasing number of low-quality journals as well as the often uncontrolled use of the internet for the exchange of medical information deserves attention by us (and lacks it so far). It is an unevitably upcoming challenge to find a more ethical approach |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Vasiliy Vlassov, Professor Saratov medical University
Send response to journal:
|
It is a pity that Dr Kassirer leaves his position. The development of BMJ to Internet openness is a direction which I salutate. But it not means that all journals MUST behave the same. I believe that very special NEJM, which image was shaped last years by Dr Kassirer efforts, has right to exist. Call for correct balance between obligations to person and to society is OK, when cerrect balance is achieved. Is it more probable in temperate English climate? We have lots of examples of incorrect balance, from Tuskegee case to Socialism. Dr. Kassirer preference of obligation to patient worth understanding as well as his view of the NEJM. Who said that necessarily new NEJM- publications will be better than old fashioned NEJM? |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Garrow
Send response to journal:
|
I think you have made a rod for your own backs by adopting open peer review. It makes more work for you . There is no evidence base that it produces better reviews . Worst of all, it erodes trust between reviewers and editors which, as Richard rightly says, is always bad. Of course your motivation for introducing open review (I use "your" to signify the BMJ editorial establishment) could not be more exalted. You wished to be seen to be absolutely fair and transparent in your judgement of papers submitted to the BMJ - bully for you. However I think your mistake was to take a too exalted view of what editing a medical journal is all about. You see yourself as resembling a quasi-legal body somewhere in the Royal Courts of Justice, bound by rules of due process, rights of appeal, etc. etc. and finish up with a huge bureaucratic monster in which trust has little part. In contrast, as editor of EJCN, I see my spiritual home to be in Notting Hill Gate, rather than the Strand. I identify with small independent shopkeepers who buy and sell objet d'art. They try to maintain a good window display to attract customers (=readers of EJCN) and make a modest profit. When someone comes in with an offering (=authors of papers) they ask the vendor to leave it for a while so they can get a valuation. To do this they rely partly on their own opinion, and partly on advice of other traders in the street (=reviewers) whom they trust to give good advice, as the trader himself would do, if asked. They also bear in mind that the goods may be faked, or stolen, and that they have a legal duty not to deal in stolen goods, and that may be sued either by vendors or customers if they deal dishonestly. I think my perception of editorial function is better than yours. Notting Hill Gate traders to not feel impelled to identify the sources of advice on which they make an offer to buy incoming goods: if the vendor does not like the offer he can always try another shop up the street and see if he gets a better offer, just as authors can go to another journal if they do not like the way I handle submissions to EJCN. Open peer review enables authors to peek into the editorial back room where decisions to accept or reject are made. This may, or may not, be a good thing -your own research shows little benefit to the authors. However it demonstrates a lack of trust between you as editor, and me as reviewer. You imply that it is necessary to reveal my identity to the author to restrain me from plagiarising his work, or to prevent me from bearing false witness about the paper in order to further my own interests. That is not a basis on which I wish to act as a reviewer for any editor, however well-intentioned you may be. John Garrow Rickmansworth Herts |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Hopkins, General Practitioner Darlington
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Dr Smith, I refer to email correspondence to me (copied to yourself and others) from a regular contributor to this page in response to my recent posting "Drinking in the Last Chance Saloon" on 16/7/2000. The intent of the posting was not to suppress freedom of speech. Quite the opposite. I am a great fan of the rapid response facility and enjoy reading the many and varied comments on all aspects of the BMJ's publications. Almost all of these are objective, rigorous and informative. A small number, however, are not. They contain personalised remarks about the Editorial team or BMJ contributors, sometimes with the clear inference that conflicting interests are at work. In isolation each of these postings is a minor discourtesy but taken together over time they erode the trust between the BMJ and its readership. In the last two years two leading editors of international medical journals have been invited to leave their posts. G Lundberg was dismissed by the JAMA on the slightly bizarre pretext of having published a paper about American teenagers sexual habits. J Kassirer of the NEJM was unable to reach agreement with his publishers on a business strategy. Commenting on this matter in the Editorial " Another editor bites the dust" (1) you refer to the importance of trust between Editors and their stakeholders. "Trust exists when each party holds certain expectations of the other; expectations of competence, predictability and fairness". The rapid response facility requires trust on the part of the BMJ by allowing its readers a far greater freedom to speak their minds. It would be ironic if, in exercising that freedom, the readership were to undermine the independence of its Editor. Dr John Hopkins Parkplace Health Centre Darlington DL1 5LW (1) Another eitor btes the Dust R Smith BMJ 199 319:272 Declaration of interest: I produce a health news web site which has hypertext links to the BMJ web site. No payment is made for these links. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joseph Christophe Watine, PH, Eur Clin Chem Hôpital de Rodez, France
Send response to journal:
|
Having read some of the “rapid responses” recently published in the eBMJ [1-3], I and some other readers and writers were dismayed to see conservatism and conformity taking hold of this web site. Are the medically trained more interested in window-dressing than in acquiring fundamental knowledge [1-3]? The merest hint of the editor flexing previously invisible muscles [4], and the conformists go scurrying about like cockroaches to translate his every word and whim into reality. This strange herd-instinct of the medically qualified, this conventionality reveals much about why medicine so often seems stuck in a groove, unadventurous, unembracing of change, fearful of modernity and conformist to a fault. Nothing very controversial or shocking has happened here and yet we see the clamps on freedom of expression being applied enthusiastically as forms of punishment [2,3] - for what [5]? What crimes have actually been committed that inspires the new "club rules" for rapid responses [4]? These new rules [4] are going to inhibit free expression and healthy debate, i.e. the free exchange of views, that once made this such an exciting meeting-place [1]. Many will be tempted to fly the nest and seek their literary pleasures elsewhere. That would be a sad disappointment. Here would only remain clinicians parroting each other's polite, shallow mutterings, going out of their way to be agreeable and uncontroversial. If you call that a discussion then you might just as well call white and black different shades of grey. Grey, grey and greyer blandness looks like main course on the new menu with everybody agreeing with everybody else - a diet of polite nothings for polite nobodies [2,3]. BMJ might sanitise itself into mediocrity and eliminate all those that made it great [5]. [1] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7250/1660/a#EL16 [2] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/321/7252/0#EL13 [3] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/319/7205/272#EL6 [4] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7250/1660/a#EL5 [5] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/321/7252/0#EL2 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Hopkins, General Practitioner Darlington
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Dr Smith, Joseph Watine's response makes the same points as his earlier e-mail to you, myself and others. Forgive the repetition but it is not my intention to argue for the suppression of free speech. The BMJ is, in part, a debating chamber in which a wide range of views and opinions are expressed. A good parallel is with the House of Commons ( whose proceedings are now broadcast by the BBC). Parliament too has its "regulars" and debate can get heated. However, there are strict conventions which limit how far Members go in what they say. They are not allowed to question each other's integrity in the course of a debate and they refer to one another by their constituencies rather than by name. These conventions can appear arcane,even ridiculous but they serve a purpose. They ensure that debate is essentially objective and impersonal, that contributions are judged not by their emotional impact but by their content and values. It is tempting to ask if any of this matters, after all most of us have other things to do than fret about the BMJ. But it matters because the rapid response is a unifying force, bringing together doctors and the public not just in Britain but around the world to share ideas. Whether, as Watine says the facility is "grey, grey, grey" is a matter of opinion. It is arguable, however, that postings which describe other respondents as "scuttling cockroaches" add little to the debate. Yours sincerely, Dr John Hopkins |
|||