Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Rapid responses
- Sri S Varman (17 May 2002)
-
Blogger me
- John Hopkins, Darlington DL1 5LW (17 May 2002)
-
Twenty thousand conversations
- Michael O'Donnell (18 May 2002)
-
Sucessful gamble
- B.C. Rao (20 May 2002)
-
The Age of Enlightenment. Bravo brave BMJ
- Roger KA Allen (21 May 2002)
-
Rapid responses offer great benefits, but at a cost
- James Mapstone (22 May 2002)
-
Rapid Response Review
- Timothy Philip Nunn (23 May 2002)
-
BMJ = British Medical Journal
- Pamela Ben-Eliezer (23 May 2002)
-
Modern Medicine and Politics are bed-fellows and Pandora is out of her box.
- Roger KA Allen (24 May 2002)
-
splendid editorial
- Joseph Watine (24 May 2002)
|
|
|||
|
Sri S Varman, Director of Surgery Cleveland, Queensland, Australia 4163
Send response to journal:
|
Living on the 'other' side of the world, the paper journal usually arrives a week or two after it is published. By the time I get to write a letter to the editor, the subject matter has moved on to something else. Now, I read the journal on Friday morning around 10.00 a.m.while the British are still asleep, thanks to the time difference.I usually get the chance to post the first response. Very well done BMJ, keep going! |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Hopkins, GP Parkplace Health Centre, Darlington DL1 5LW
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Dr Smith, BMJ.com can’t have it both ways; encouraging people to submit rapid responses (1) and then describing those whose postings fall below an arbitrary standard as ‘problem children’(2). More importantly, your leading article seems unfair to Roy Meadow (3). His article was not an attempt to suppress academic debate but to argue for moderation in the way the press comment on criminal prosecution. As a paediatrician he will presumably have followed the Southall case in which a woman now serving a jail sentence, repeatedly used the bmj rapid response facility to denounce David Southall, a professor of paediatrics at the University of North Staffordshire, for his work on Munchausan syndrome by proxy. John Milton was a great advocate of free speech but he also understood the meaning of natural justice. Yours sincerely, Dr John Hopkins (1) Blogging on meflo quine and sleep disturbance R Smith Rapid Response 22nd April 2001 (2) Twenty thousand conversations Smith and Delamothe BMJ 18th May 2002 (3) A Case of Murder and the BMJ R Meadow 5th January 2002. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael O'Donnell, Writer Hamdon Cottage, Loxhill, Godalming GU8 4BD
Send response to journal:
|
Your image of a converstaion is bang on the button. Don't discount the value of rapid responses to those of us who don't participate but try to learn by listening in on other people's conversations. The advantage of your virtual party has over a real party is that those of us whose curiosity verges on the pathological and who, to the embarrassment of our companions, try shamelessly to eavesdrop on other people's conversations in buses, trains, and at adjacent tables in restaurants, is that we can not just avoid the bores but can listen in on every conversation in the room. Your publication of responses is the most encouraging change in medical journalism in my liftime. So please keep it free from sanctions and club rules. Michael O'Donnell |
|||
|
|
|||
|
B.C. Rao, G.P cLininc,Apoorva diagnostic centre.CMH Road,Bangalore 560008,India
Send response to journal:
|
I remember Richard Smith forcasting that the internet would revolutionalise the way we think and behave and the BMJ going electronic [and free] has helped us in this part of the world immensely. The only problem with rapid responses will be that when one is responding, there is not much time [as one is online and the time is still expensive for us here] for editing and spelling and grammer errors creep in and when you later read the response this can be annoying. Why donot you when you are reading the response make corrections before putting it out? This will save me from some embarassment! |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Roger KA Allen, Consultant Thoracic and Sleep Physician, Private Practice Suite 299,St Andrew's Place,33 North St, Spring Hill, Brisbane,Qld 4000, Australia
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor, As a subspecialist who formerly rarely read a generalist journal,I am a total convert/addict to this treasury of free thinking and repartee. The section,'Rapid Responses' not only leads to a democratisation of science and medicine (formerly we were prevented from free participation by the whims of editors) but ideas unpublished can be circularised which can lead to research and changes. Imagine Leonardo Da Vinci in today's research climate without an NH& MRC grant. Many of his ideas would have been ridiculed as proposterous. I think a rubrique of 'New Ideas' needs discussion and even a place to mention that unmentionable, the negative result or study which never sees the light of day. I with others colleague spent several years on a large prospective study of ploidy in lung cancer which refuted a far inferior positive study we had oublished in the Lancet. Not surprisingly it far more technically advanced second study which was negative was never accepted for publication. Everyone had lost interest and the erroneous conclusions of the first paper stand in perpetuity as a reminder of the stupidity of medical publishing fashions. It remains in my filing cabinet to this day. Finally as no counterpart exists in unenlightened Terra Australis (the land of the endless long weekend),it is delightful to share ideas from half a world away, instantaneously and to be able to respond early to articles while the Brits are all asleep and before the milkman arrives. Spellcheck and a Word should be considered to get it out of the telegraph and morse code era. Roger Allen
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
James Mapstone, Clinical Lecturer in Epidemiology and Population Health LSHTM, London
Send response to journal:
|
I think rapid responses are a brilliant idea and have proved their worth. The immediacy of response and the web link with the original article is incredibly valuable. The conversational aspect has also added much to many debates. For those articles that capture my imagination, I always go to the rapid responses to see what other people thought. However, the cost is that having read many rapid responses to the theme issue on road traffic crashes I felt demoralised and devalued. Many responses were not about the articles, but complaining that the theme issue was not about how doctors or the health service kill patients. One other was by a first aider intimating how doctors mainly got in the way at a crash scene. I never thought I would here myself calling for increased censorship of people's views, but I believe the BMJ has a responsibility to health services around the globe. Rapid responses should always be respectful, relevant, courteous and collaborative. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Timothy Philip Nunn, Medical Officer Ubombo Sugar Big Bend Swaziland
Send response to journal:
|
The basic premise for on-line responses is open expression or "conversation" as in your analogy.This is the same premise used to justify open correspondence on the web.How do we go about peer review of rapid responses?Who decides what constitutes permitted "conversation" and what does not? This is all the more difficult if the responses are to remain rapid, the respondees are unknown quantities and the content of their "conversation" not always relevant to the article. I am not in favour of censorship but am fully conscious that this form of communication will change the nature of medical journals forever. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Pamela Ben-Eliezer, Librarian Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem 91031, Israel
Send response to journal:
|
I find it a very interesting coincidence that this editorial is published in the issue that contains a not totally medically-orientated Personal View (Occupied Territories: entry denied). I have never before today looked at the rapid responses so cannot judge whether the responses to this article are typical but I find some of them very disturbing. Several journals of the BMJ Publishing Group have taken to using initials instead of the full title. Maybe, in the case of the BMJ, this has perhaps helped some people behind the journal to become confused as to the aim of the publication. However contemporary the idea of rapid responses is, I feel they should at least adhere to the aim of the BMJ, i.e. medical not political. The responses to this Personal View do not come under the realm of "knowledge creation". They do not add to the dignity of the British Medical Journal, as it was once known. May I suggest that you do insist on some limit as to what appears as a rapid response. I assume in this case that the aim of the Personal View was to promote good medicine. The rapid responses should do no less. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Roger KA Allen, Consultant Thoracic and Sleep Physician, Private Practice Suite 299,St Andrew's Place,33 North St, Spring Hill, Brisbane,Qld 4000, Australia
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editors, Medicine and politics are inseparable. Medicine is not a virginal butterfly in a glass case for academics to ponder with their magnifying glasses.It is humans suffering. The viability of the current Antarctic Treaty and Kyoto Accord determine whether Australia will need more dermatologists and melanoma units in the next 20 years and whether my children can play on the beach. The future health of East Timorese children depends on their country's negotiating an equitable treaty with Australia on the North-West Shelf oil fields. The political will of our legislature at present with regards tort law reform and the medical defence debacle will determine if and when I resume doing bronchoscopies and seeing new patients, and whether we have obstetrics trainee posts filled. Dare I mention the pathetic Middle East situation which pollutes the front pages of our newspapers and evening news daily.Dare I mention the small arms pandemic. As for Rapid Responses, Pandora is out of her box and the Internet will ensure its survival and growth in some form or other, with or without the Brits, and their MEDICAL Journal. Respectfully
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joseph Watine, consultant, laboratory medicine Hôpital de Rodez, France
Send response to journal:
|
Congratulations and thank you Drs Delamothe and Smith for this very interesting and well written editorial of yours [1]. Bearing in mind some rapid responses that were posted some months ago on this very topic [2, 3], your splendid editorial [1] might nicely illustrate the saying: “idiotic people are the only ones that do not change their opinion”. References: [1] Delamothe T, Smith R. Twenty thousand conversations. EDITORIAL. BMJ 2002;324:1171-1172 (18 May). [2] Smith R. Bores on the web. RAPID RESPONSE. mj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7250/1660/a#8665, 8 Jul 2000 [3] Watine JC. Re: Freedom of speech on eBMJ? RAPID RESPONSE. bmj.com/cgi/eletters/319/7205/272#8906, 23 Jul 2000 |
|||