Letters

Using email for abstracts submitted for conference was unexpectedly labour intensive

BMJ 1998; 317 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7157.543 (Published 22 August 1998) Cite this as: BMJ 1998;317:543

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 discriminates against girls

  1. A W Murphy, Professor of general practice.,
  2. M McSweeney, Research fellow.,
  3. T C O'Dowd, Professor of general practice.,
  4. G Bury, Professor of general practice.,
  5. W Shannon, Professor of general practice.,
  6. C P Bradley, Professor of general practice.
  1. Association of University Departments of General Practice in Ireland, Department of General Practice, University College Galway, Republic of Ireland
  2. Department of Child Health, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH
  3. Department of Clinical Oncology, City Hospital, Nottingham NG5 1PB

    EDITOR —Recent speculation suggested a “utopian vision” for electronic scientific publishing.1 Our experience in organising an international conference may be helpful in outlining the potential, but the current difficulties, of using electronic mail.

    The annual scientific meeting of the Association of the University Departments of General Practice in Ireland, which attracted 458 delegates, was held in Dublin in July 1997. The closing day for the submission of abstracts was Friday 14 February, and submission by email was especially encouraged. A total of 334 abstracts was submitted, of which 241 were sent by email (table). The emails arrived in three forms: as a Word attachment (178), part of the email text (7), or an uuencoded document within the email (56). Altogether 49 of the 50 submissions received after the weekend of the closing date were sent by email. A total of 690 email messages relating to …

    View Full Text

    Sign in

    Log in through your institution

    Free trial

    Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
    Sign up for a free trial

    Subscribe