Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Just how rapid is "eternal" review?
- Jonathan N. Latham (27 August 2004)
-
Eternal Review? Certainly it is!
- Vadakkuppattu D Ramanathan (27 August 2004)
-
Deliberate mistake?
- Alan Montgomery (27 August 2004)
-
The "eternal" review process
- Malcolm Griffiths (27 August 2004)
-
Perpetual review
- Jeremy N.V. Miles (27 August 2004)
-
Eternal review
- Piers Simey (27 August 2004)
-
Abstract submissions
- S. S. Musheer Hussain (27 August 2004)
-
A priceless Freudian Slip?
- David S Sanders (30 August 2004)
-
How long reviews?
- Marcel P.J.M. Dijkers (31 August 2004)
-
Screening research papers by reading abstracts - A Freudian slip?
- Junaid Masood, Mr. S.S. Gujral, Consultant Urological Surgeon, Harold Wood Hospital, Romford, Essex (20 September 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Jonathan N. Latham, President PharmaScribe, LLC; Skillman NJ USA 08558
Send response to journal:
|
As a freelance medical writer and editor, I am always fascinated by what catches the editor's eye and what drives decisions about whether a manuscript will be published or will perish. Thank you for confirming my suspicion that editors start the same place we readers do -- with the abstract. Given the number of articles that make it into publication but fail to catch the reader's attention in the abstract, I shudder to think what your daily duty editors must read if 15% to 25% of the articles don't make it past that first brief review of the abstract. But what really tickled me was the typo that read, "Daily duty editors...can reject manuscripts, send them for eternal review, or pass them to colleagues..." I suspect that "eternal" review is selected for those papers that are neither suitable for external review nor clearly destined for rejection, but instead must spend an eternity in review while their authors wait anxiously, forever awaiting your reply. In fact, I presume this letter has that ideal combination--the observation is correct, but the letter displays blatant disrespect for the editor--necessary to be selected for eternal review, rather than rapid review or immediate rejection. If I were in your shoes, however, I think I'd opt for the latter. Eternally yours,
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Vadakkuppattu D Ramanathan, Deputy Director & Head, Dept. of Pathology Dept. of Pathology, Tuberculosis Research Centre, Chennai, 600 031, INDIA
Send response to journal:
|
Often the subconscious reveals what the superego tries to hide. You say that “Daily duty editors make initial decisions within 24 hours of submission of research papers and can reject manuscripts, send them for eternal review, or pass them to colleagues for a further opinion almost instantly using our online manuscript processing system”. Very often, some of my papers sent to many journals have had an ‘eternal’ review. Not long ago, one prestigious British journal kept my paper for 6 months and after repeated correspondence told me that they did not have a suitable reviewer and could I suggest one for them! V.D.RAMANATHAN. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alan Montgomery, Lecturer in Primary Care Research University of Bristol
Send response to journal:
|
"...and can reject manuscripts, send them for eternal review, or pass them to colleagues for a further opinion..." I know it sometimes feels like it takes forever but for the BMJ to admit it...... Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Malcolm Griffiths, Consultant & clincial direcotr O&G Luton & Dunstable Hospital, LU40DZ
Send response to journal:
|
Were the authors being ironic or just honest when referring to the "eternal review" process? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jeremy N.V. Miles, Lecturer in Biostatistics University of York, York, YO10 5DD
Send response to journal:
|
I hope that "eternal review" used in this editorial was a typo, and did not refer to a Kafka-esque process of articles circulating around the postal service (or internet) ad infinitum. I am pleased to say that this is not an accurate description of the review process for papers I have been involved in, which have been submmitted to the BMJ. These have been rejected swiftly and efficiently.
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Piers Simey, Health Improvement Manager Public Health Department, Wandsworth PCT, Springfield Hospital, 61 Glenburnie Rd., London SW17 7DJ
Send response to journal:
|
"Daily duty editors make initial decisions within 24 hours of submission of research papers and can reject manuscripts, send them for eternal review..." A Freudian slip perhaps? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
S. S. Musheer Hussain, Consultant Otolaryngologist Ninewells Hospital & Medical School. Dundee. DD1 9SY
Send response to journal:
|
Submitting an abstract is the usual practice for paper acceptance at scientific meetings so screening research papers by reading abstracts seem reasonable. The question is, will the BMJ allow authors to simply submit an abstract for screening and then invite them to submit the full paper for consideration if the paper gets past this hurdle? This will concentrate the minds of the authors and will avoid some of the problems with abstracts that the editorial lists. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David S Sanders, Gastroenterology Consultant Royal Hallamshire Hospital, glossop road, sheffield, S10 2JF
Send response to journal:
|
Groves and Abassi should be congratulated for their recent editorial review on the whole publication process but most of all for their priceless typo 'send them for eternal review' - never a truer word spoken! Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Marcel P.J.M. Dijkers, Associate Professor of Rehabilitation Medicine New York, New York, USA 10029-6574
Send response to journal:
|
As editorial board member of two journals, and reviewer for many more, I wonder whether Groves and Abbasi's statement on how BMJ processes submitted manuscripts contains more than a kernel of truth when they write: "Daily duty editors make initial decisions within 24 hours of submission of research papers and can reject manuscripts, send them for eternal review, or pass them to colleagues for a further opinion almost instantly using our online manuscript processing system (submit.bmj,com)." Communication within BMJ and between its editors and authors on the one hand, and editors and reviewers on the other, may be instantaneous, but getting responses from external reviewers continuous to depend on their time availability, and to an author it may indeed seem like an eternity before that editorial decision (whether "accept" in its manifold varieties, or "reject") comes back. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Junaid Masood, Specialist Registrar in Urology Harold Wood Hospital, RM3 0BE, Mr. S.S. Gujral, Consultant Urological Surgeon, Harold Wood Hospital, Romford, Essex
Send response to journal:
|
Editors. We read with interest your editorial on screening research papers by reading abstracts alone. Your typographical error regarding eternal review (2nd paragraph, 13th line)instead of external review is a true Freudian slip if we ever saw one! Perhaps you should have included your technical editor in the screening process for this article! On a more serious note, we feel that authors from smaller subspecialties such as ours (Urology), often feel aggrieved that research they consider pertinant for dissemination to a wider medical readership such as the one the BMJ caters for, is rejected without suitable external review on the whim of one or two daily duty editors who may have little or no experience of that subspecialty. In our opinion it would be better if these manuscripts were sent to "second line" editors for further opinion before considering appropriate external review. In a later study to the one mentioned in your article, Pitkin et al., assessed abstracts accompanying research papers in six medical journals including yours (1). The proportion of deficient abstracts varied widely (18%-68%). This shows that data in the abstract that are inconsistent with or absent from the articles body are common, even in large-circulation general medical journals such as The BMJ. Whilst we agree abstracts should be accurate and reflect the true content of the paper this may not always be possible in explicit terms and hence we urge care with early rejection of articles especially those from the subspecialties. Otherwise you run the risk of rejecting potentially high class work. 1. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA 1999 Mar 24-31; 281: 1110-1 Competing interests: None declared |
|||