Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Medical editor lambasts journals and editors
- Nancy Medina (22 September 2001)
-
How to have your paper reviewed successfully: ask a friend
- D Banks (22 September 2001)
-
Editors are human too
- Pramod Bapat (23 September 2001)
-
Gate keepers refusal for reformations
- Erdem I Cantekin (27 September 2001)
-
An excellent opportunity to give more dignity to letters to the Editors
- Joăo Bernardes (3 October 2001)
-
Pioneering new era of biomedical science publishing
- Alexei R Koudinov (8 October 2001)
|
|
|||
|
Nancy Medina, Editorial Director, Annals of Emergency Medicine American College of Emergency Physicians
Send response to journal:
|
Annals of Emergency Medicine and its editors agree with Dr. Rennie with respect to his passionate support of developing and sustaining the most stringent methods of peer review. The International Congress on Peer Review is an event we and other medical editors across the United States prepare for years in advance of the event, as it occurs only once every three years. It is unfortunate that attendance is not stronger at this important gathering. However, it should be noted that a number of editors who were selected for this prestigious program (some from our own journal) could not attend due to the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Air traffic was grounded in the United States from September 11 to 13. Only select flights were allowed September 14 and 15. Fortunately for Annals, three of our editors had arrived at the Congress early and were able to present for their colleagues. Unfortunately for many others who could not fly or who were covering shifts for coworkers called to assist at Ground Zero, an opportunity to attend one of the most important events in our profession was missed. This is an opportunity that will not recur for another three years. To those who could attend, please share your discussions and presentations and make them easily accessible for your colleagues in the United States. We are determined to continue our goal of presenting only the best scientific research and will succeed in doing so despite the obstacles that have recently presented themselves. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
D Banks, scientist University of Singapore
Send response to journal:
|
I think its absolutely appalling that some journals such as Molecular Microbiology, ask the authors for names of potential reviewers. 8 out of ten times, these authors will choose their friends in the field, who they know, will review their work lightly. In case of Molecular Microbiology, you have cell biology studies (ie study of infection using tissue culture) that should never be published because the techniques used to do the studies are terrible and do not give true results and this is because the studies are done by microbiologists and reviewd by a microbiologist instead of a cell biologist . |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Pramod Bapat, Consultant in Anaesthetics Arrowe Park Hospital
Send response to journal:
|
Editor, It comes as no surprise that the editors are not up to the mark in their craft.1 One should remember that most editors are medical professionals who have become editors because of their academic achievements. The academic world in any discipline is a small world where people know who matters. It would be no surprise if within such a small fraternity, editors feel pressurised to publish substandard papers authored by their “friends”. On the other hand the responsibility of editing a journal may occasionally make the editor highly possessive of their journals. Recently I came across an editor of a prestigious journal who not only was the author of the editorial but was also the referee to the correspondence in response to it, clearly a conflict of interest. I don’t know if this is a regular occurrence but suspect that it is. Should one bring such an irregularity to the notice of the erring editor? I asked this question to a few colleagues who were almost unanimous in their suggestion to keep quiet and forget the matter. A revealing insight of the survival instinct! Pramod Bapat, consultant in anaesthetics
Competing interest: None. 1.Smith R. Congress on peer review in biomedical publication –Reports. BMJ 2001; 323: 651. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Erdem I Cantekin, Professor of Otolaryngology University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Send response to journal:
|
Twelve years after the First Peer Review Conference, the reformation efforts of Drummond Rennie and his colleagues has been rebuked by the majority of the gate keepers of biomedical information. The status quo rules and competing interests flourish. In fact the influence of money for misleading articles in medical journal are more frequently exposed than ever. It seems that the special interest groups in their efforts to spin the truth are already many steps ahead of the reformers and opening up the lead. This sadly includes Dr. Rennie’s own journal JAMA. The following abstract which I had submitted to the Fourth International Conference on Peer Review was found not worthy of inclusion by the peer reviewers of the conference. Self reformation is difficult. I am including the rejected abstract so that the readers of BMJ may decide on the merits. "January 9, 2001. Abstract Submitted for the Fourth International Conference on Peer Review in Biomedical Publications Title: Editor’s Dilemma: Science Fiction Publications ABSTRACT In today’s super-specialized medicine, when leading experts (after a traditional peer review by the other leading experts) publish fiction rather than science and write supporting editorials to inflate each others work, what should the editors do? Do editors have an ethical obligation to expose those networks of authors and experts who promote medical and surgical interventions (with significant effect on public health) by their science fiction publications in the leading medical journals? Or should the editors wash their hands like the FDA associate commissioner who in a fifteen month period had approved some 800 conflict-of-interest waivers for the Advisory Committee members by asserting that “the greater the expertise, the greater the potential for conflict”. Three articles published in JAMA within the last year would be presented as examples of peril as such - interlocking peer review with obvious conflicts in the pursuit of control of information in biomedical publications. Those three examples are all about the “small” world of otitis media, the most common disease of childhood. Though it is a self-limiting and benign disease, otitis media has a significant cost with yearly expenditures of more than five billion dollars. The cases to be presented involve an ineffective surgical procedure, a bogus genetic link, and finally a voodoo medico-economic analysis about a billion dollar a year ineffective vaccine campaign for all newborns in America. Word Count: 223" |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joăo Bernardes, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology Faculdade de Medicina do Porto
Send response to journal:
|
The medical journal Editors' concern about poor quality publications, reported by Smith [1], is an excellent opportunity to give more dignity to letters to the Editors, generally treated as secondary scientific interventions, that may be answered negligently, do not deserve comments and should not be referenced in papers. What is more important: a paper full of errors, wrong conclusions and harmful guidelines or a letter that identifies errors or adds knowledge that can save lives, health and scientific resources? Medical literature is full of errors, as claimed by Doug Altman, but also full of negligently treated letters to the Editors. The publication review by readers argued by Drummond Rennie from JAMA, reported by Smith [1], already exists in all its plenitude, in the form of letters to the Editors. It is just a matter of giving more attention and dignity to this type of publications, as it is already done in some medical journals where letters and answers are often discussed by Editors and invited experts, such as Doug Altman himself, as exemplified in the Letter to the Editor-Reply-Comment included in references 2 to 4 [2 -4]. Shouldn´t we take the opportunity of the congress on peer review in biomedical publication to make correspondence sections obligatory in all medical journals and to stimulate and treat them with more dignity? References 1- Smith R. Congress on peer review in biomedical publication. BMJ 2001;323:651. 2- Wang ST et al. Measurement error - "how much of o difference does it take to make a difference?". Letter to the Editor. Fertil Steril 1997;67:789. 3- Kyei-Mensah A et al. Measurement error - "how much of o difference does it take to make a difference?". Reply. Fertil Steril 1997;67:789. 4- McDonough PG. Measurement error - "how much of o difference does it take to make a difference?". Comment. Fertil Steril 1997;67:790-1. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alexei R Koudinov, Senior research scientist Berezov Academic Lab, Rus. Acad. Med. Sciences, c/o Weizmann Inst, Biol. Regul, Rehovot 76100 Israel
Send response to journal:
|
I read with great interest the News article “Medical editor lambasts journals and editors” in September 22 issue of BMJ ( 2001; 323: 651 ). I enthusiastically support the open peer review system of BMJ and will be happy to see other journals moving in this direction. I also would like to appreciate BMJ commitment to provide readers (through fast electronic publications of eResponses) with the media for near live discussion of the journal contributions. We participated in submitting e-responses to several High Wire journals , including Science dEbate ; JCI eLetters; Neurology Post-Publications Peer Review; and BMJ eResponses . Unfortunately, except of BMJ, none of the listed journals provided fast processing and publication of e-submissions, thus killing the idea and value of e-response instant publication. I and my colleagues thus appreciate BMJ holding primacy in this modern way of biomedical publishing and feedback. We also would like to suggest: References 1. Author Internet Office.
|
|||