Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I felt somehow threatened by this article. That one of the best and most reliable sources of information about public health, accessible by all, is to some extent being pressured to "correct" supposed imbalances in terms of the contents that it publishes is disturbing.
To reinforce my point: the BMJ is not filling only local, UK demands for accurate and up to date scientific information. It is also a beacon of light for those who work and struggle elsewhere for a decent practice and comprehensive policymaking approach in public health.
As you may suspect, the conditions in Brazil are rather harsh. We have to be extremely practical to deal with the bureaucratic establishment and sectorial agendas; this is not wrong, it is just part of the game. Then, very often, we need the robust support provided by the e-BMJ to enrich the debate and bring a little bit of evidence based knowledge.
Tight schedules, the need for rapid decisions, and increasing demands leave us very little time for to keep up to date.
Receive this as an acknowledgement and incentive to keep playing better than your counterparts, providing a global resource of holistic and scientific public health. We all--the rest of the world--thank you for this.
too much public health
I felt somehow threatened by this article. That one of the best and most reliable sources of information about public health, accessible by all, is to some extent being pressured to "correct" supposed imbalances in terms of the contents that it publishes is disturbing.
To reinforce my point: the BMJ is not filling only local, UK demands for accurate and up to date scientific information. It is also a beacon of light for those who work and struggle elsewhere for a decent practice and comprehensive policymaking approach in public health.
As you may suspect, the conditions in Brazil are rather harsh. We have to be extremely practical to deal with the bureaucratic establishment and sectorial agendas; this is not wrong, it is just part of the game. Then, very often, we need the robust support provided by the e-BMJ to enrich the debate and bring a little bit of evidence based knowledge.
Tight schedules, the need for rapid decisions, and increasing demands leave us very little time for to keep up to date.
Receive this as an acknowledgement and incentive to keep playing better than your counterparts, providing a global resource of holistic and scientific public health. We all--the rest of the world--thank you for this.
Dr. Rojas-Hinojosa
Programme Offcial
UNFPA-Brazil
Competing interests: No competing interests