Screening research papers by reading abstracts: Review may be eternal but rejection is swift

EDITOR—I hope that “eternal review” used in this editorial by Groves and Abbasi was a typo and did not refer to a Kafka-esque process of articles circulating around the postal service (or internet) ad infinitum.1

I am pleased to say that this is not an accurate description of the review process for papers I have been involved in that have been submitted to the BMJ. These were rejected swiftly and efficiently.