Revitalising rapid responses

BMJ 2005; 330 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7503.1284 (Published 2 June 2005)
Cite this as: BMJ 2005;330:1284

Get access to this article and all of bmj.com for the next 14 days

Sign up for a 14 day free trial today

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

  1. Sharon Davies, letters editor (sdavies@bmj.com),
  2. Tony Delamothe, web editor
  1. BMJ

    We're raising the bar for publication

    I will go root away

    The noisome weeds, which without profit suck

    The soil's fertility from wholesome flowers.

    Shakespeare, Richard II

    When we were somewhat greener, we likened websites to gardens: both combine amazing opportunities for experiment with the option of obliterating mistakes when things go wrong.1 But even then we warned, “Turn your back on them for a few weeks, and they're overrun with weeds.” This is the fate that has befallen rapid responses, and why we're raising our threshold for publication.

    On their launch, these electronic letters to the editor were hailed as the salvation of the journal's need to provide opportunities for timely debate. Previously, we had published only about one third of the letters to the editor that we received, and those about six months late.2

    Marking the publication of the 20 000th response in 2002, we judged the experiment a …

    Get access to this article and all of bmj.com for the next 14 days

    Sign up for a 14 day free trial today

    Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

    Article access

    Article access for 1 day

    Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*

    The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

    * Prices do not include VAT

    THIS WEEK'S POLL