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 found this filler fascinating. After recovering from the initial
shock that the BMJ in 1900 had space to comment on the artistic merits of
Christmas cards, I was struck by the shift in our attitudes towards
advertising. Did this item represent a covert (but paid for)
advertisement? Or was it a genuine endorsement for a product offered
because it might be of interest to BMJ readers? How did those BMJ readers
react in 1900? Were there any calls for the author to declare his or her
interests in the card manufacturers? Imagine the suspicion and outcry
today if the BMJ sang the praises of a particular brand of stationery or
recommended a tasty Christmas pudding from a well-known supermarket. I'm
not advocating the introduction of a Christmas card review section, but it
is refreshing to glimpse a time when people were less suspicious and
idiosyncracy was not threatened by political correctness.
How times have changed
I found this filler fascinating. After recovering from the initial
shock that the BMJ in 1900 had space to comment on the artistic merits of
Christmas cards, I was struck by the shift in our attitudes towards
advertising. Did this item represent a covert (but paid for)
advertisement? Or was it a genuine endorsement for a product offered
because it might be of interest to BMJ readers? How did those BMJ readers
react in 1900? Were there any calls for the author to declare his or her
interests in the card manufacturers? Imagine the suspicion and outcry
today if the BMJ sang the praises of a particular brand of stationery or
recommended a tasty Christmas pudding from a well-known supermarket. I'm
not advocating the introduction of a Christmas card review section, but it
is refreshing to glimpse a time when people were less suspicious and
idiosyncracy was not threatened by political correctness.
Competing interests: No competing interests