Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
The Demise Of British Medicine?
- Benjamin R Grey, Jeremy E. Oates (9 August 2006)
-
Publication stratergy
- Simon Rinaldi (9 August 2006)
-
Re: The Demise Of British Medicine?
- Robert P Jones (9 August 2006)
-
The common specialities do not appear in Minerva
- Kesavan Sri-Ram (12 August 2006)
|
|
|||
|
Benjamin R Grey, Research Fellow in Urology University of Manchester Paterson Institute for Cancer Research, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4BX, Jeremy E. Oates
Send response to journal:
|
Editor- Williams (1) comments on the introduction of seamless training and the looming bottleneck facing the junior grades in August 2007. As research fellows undertaking an MD postgraduate degree, we too are acutely aware of the extraordinarily competitive environment this has currently generated. In the past many clinicians have been advised to strengthen their chances of career progression with a research degree, despite not having an academic interest. Whilst it may be perceived that this time is wasted, the skills the research students have acquired will undoubtedly have helped them in their subsequent evidence-based practice. O’Sullivan and O’Colmain (2) make an interesting suggestion as to publication strategy. Dermatology in particular does benefit from being a very visual speciality and amenable to having case reports published within Minerva. These points of interest are not only fascinating but provide the reader with a repertoire of eponymous conditions or rarer presentations of commoner diseases. The majority of the BMJ’s Careers Focus "Tips on…" series have been of benefit to the medical reader. "Tips on… writing a letter to a medical journal" was of particular interest (3)! However, we argue that "Tips on …how to be the nurses’ favourite doctor" (4) and "Tips on … impressing your boss on the golf course" (5) are aginst the BMJ’s strong selection process and only serve as a vehicle for boosting individuals portfolios. Firstly, we propose that the likely decrease in numbers entering academia from 2007 is harmful to the future of British medicine. Furthermore it is our hope that clinicians continue to enjoy the thrill of accumulating publications and appreciate the wider benefits of research and subsequent manuscript submission without publishing purely for publications’ sake. (1) Williams GS. "Call for papers". BMJ 2006;333:207 (22 July.) (2) O’Sullivan EP and O’Colmain U. Minerva might help you get something published. BMJ 2006;333:305 (5 August.) (3) Walsh K. Tips on...Writing a letter to a medical journal. BMJ Career Focus 2005;331:169. (4) Vouros M and Kiverniti E. Tips on...How to be the nurses' favourite doctor. BMJ Career focus 2006;332:223. (5) Davies N. Tips on...Impressing your boss on the golf course. BMJ Career Focus 2006;332:69. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Simon Rinaldi, SHO in Neurology Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, M23 9LT
Send response to journal:
|
EDITOR— I am writing to congratulate both Williams (1) and O'Sullivan (2). They have been successful in getting something published by writing about the stratergies for doing just that. This would seem like a new avenue to explore, and I would be keen to continue the trend, perhaps in the bottom right hand corner of the letters page. 1. Williams GS. "Call for papers." BMJ 2006;333: 207 2. Eoin P O'Sullivan and Una O'Colmain "Minerva might help you get something published" BMJ 2006;333: 305. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Robert P Jones, F2 Cardiothoracic Surgery Manchester Royal Infirmary, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9QL
Send response to journal:
|
Editor, As an F2 surgical trainee, Williams (1) article on the struggle for publication certainly rings true. The notion that publications are essential for career progression within competitive specialties is constantly reinforced. The rapid response by Grey (2) certainly raises interesting issues about the role of academic research and its future under MMC. Research may be undertaken by academic high-flyers with a genuine interest in core science. Equally, it may be undertaken by career-minded individuals who recognise the prestige another degree carries.Although the latter scenario is no less noble, are we reaching a point where people pursue academic research purely as an opportunity to fill out their CV? Is this a sensible use of highly skilled clinicians time? I would argue that although high quality research and publications that contribute to understanding are an essential foundation of medical practice, the relentless pursuit of "any publication at any cost" is to our detriment. (1) Williams GS. "Call for papers". BMJ 2006;333:207 (22 July.) (2) Rapid Response. The Demise Of British Medicine? Grey, B.R., Oates, J.E. (9 August 2006) Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kesavan Sri-Ram, SpR - Trauma & Orthopaedics Oldchurch Hospital, Romford, RM7 0BE
Send response to journal:
|
EDITOR - I also sympathise with the plight of Williams (1) and O'Sullivan & O'Colmain (2), in trying to increase one's publication profile. The Minerva picture is a popular target for junior doctors, and I am on the constant lookout for 'visual opportunities'. Having had two unsuccessful attempts at Minerva picture publications, I am left wondering about the speciality distribution and the purpose of the publication. I was led to believe that there should be an 'educational message'. With this in mind, I find it difficult to understand the over-representation of dermatology and ophthalmology when, for example, most clinicians would not appreciate the finer points of fundoscopy. I would hope to see more 'general' items, and perhaps a skeletal radiograph or two! (1) Williams GS. "Call for papers". BMJ 2006;333:207 (22 July.) (2) O’Sullivan EP and O’Colmain U. Minerva might help you get something published. BMJ 2006;333:305 (5 August.) Competing interests: None declared |
|||