The BMJ: moving on
BMJ 2002; 324 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7328.5 (Published 05 January 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;324:5
All rapid responses
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.
Sir
We were amused by Richard Smith's decision (editorial, January 5th
2002) to place Brain antipodal to Cosmopolitan in his reference to
forbidding research, froth and colour in journals and magazines; but we
hope that, without pausing too long from the important task of developing
tactics for encouraging subscribers actually to read the BMJ (and for
pleasure not as a chore), Dr Smith might also find time to look at a copy
of Brain.
Without wishing to be unduly competitive, either with the BMJ or our
stable mate Cosmopolitan, we have printed in colour and had an illustrated
front cover since 1994; we receive and review papers on-line; the number
of individuals taking advantage of out e-toc facility has trebled in the
last few months over which period access through our home-page has
doubled; we are set to introduce a pay-for-view system (shades of
Cosmoplitan here) and provide free electronic access to all articles
published more than 12 months previously; we have an increasing number of
electronic subscribers (a paper on the neuroanatomy of pleasure whilst
eating chocolate received 14,831 hits).
Seemingly unlike the BMJ, 19th century copies of our journal are still
read and cited for their content, not the advertisements - since there are
none. Because we have a high reputation amongst clinicians and scientists,
and pay editorial attention to language and syntax, Brain is purchased,
thoroughly well read and profitable. As a charity, we will distribute
£200k in the current financial year and now offer travel grants to young
neuroscientists, entry fellowships for clinical trainees in neurology
wishing to get started in research or move back to clinical training,
research leave fellowships for those who have completed their clinical
training and need re-exposure to research, and top-up salaries to
encourage aspiring neurologists to work in basic science laboratories
where non clinical salaries are being offered - activities which are
designed to strengthen clinical neuroscience.
Research-orientated, we may
be; forbidding and insensitive to the changing needs of academic medicine,
we are not.
Alastair Compston PhD FRCP FMedSci, Chairman of the Guarantors
John Newsom Davis CBE MD FRCP FMedSci FRS, Editor
Brain
Institute of Neurology,
Queen Square,
London WC1N 3BG
Competing interests: No competing interests
I like the changes to the BMJ this year. More pictures. More
interesting articles, and so more interesting debates and responses. More
memorable. Better looking.
Ask any journalist what makes people pick up magazines off the
newstand and he or she will tell you it is a good front cover image. We
are intensely visual creatures and whatever some doctors say about wanting
hard papers or content we cannot help but be drawn to strong images, way
ahead of any content.
Well done for making BMJ more enjoyable.
Competing interests: No competing interests
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Editor – Changing the BMJ cover, regardless apparently of few wanting
it, follows NHS best practice (1) Patient Concern gets consulted weekly on
some aspect of healthcare services. The service providers have almost
invariably already decided the outcome. The preferred option (if any are
acknowledged) is often pitched so hard that only a lunatic could reject
it.
A cover needs to be recognisable and informative. Its uniqueness
should be viewed as a source of pride rather than an aberration. Perhaps
the BMJ is looking for the Euro effect. Familiarity will breed
acquiescence if not acceptance, let alone approval.
Roger M. Goss
Consumer representative,
BMJ Editorial Board
(1) Smith R: The BMJ 2002; moving on. BMJ 2002; 324: 39-41 (5
January)
Competing interests: No competing interests
Editor,
In the interest of Science (= knowledge of fact) and Logic (= science
of reasoning), may I point out that Richard Smith’s assertion “David
Nicholl will not need reminding that everything--him, me, the works of
Shakespeare, Aristotle, Darwin, Beethoven, and Einstein, and the Himalayas
--will be gone in the end” is predicated on two unproved premises:
1. The Universe is not Infinite
2. Einstein’s theory of Relativity is False.
Either both these are true or their contradictory assumptions are
true i.e.
1. The Universe is Infinite
2. Einstein’s theory of Relativity is True
In an Infinite Universe, any event which has a greater than zero
chance of occurring, as do all events mentioned by Richard Smith, must
occur an Infinite number of times.
Mathematically therefore, there is no dearth of Nicholls, Smiths and
Einsteins scattered throughout an Infinite Universe.
Furthermore, although all are destined to “pass away”, they do not do
so simultaneously as absolute simultaneity disappears in Relativity [1].
Plato and Aristotle, as did the Hindus and Chinese, took it for
granted that human society as well as the cosmos, had been, and will
continue to be, wrecked and rehabilitated any number of times [2]
Richard Smith could be wrong in his assumption of himself and others
“…being gone in the end” if there is no end!
Michael Innis
References
1.The New Encylopaedia Britannica (1985) vol 28; Time as
systematized in modern scientific society. Published by Encyclopaedia
Britannica.Inc University of Chicago p 656.
2.The New Encylopaedia Britannica (1985) vol 28; Prescientific
Conceptions of Time and their Influence. Published by Encyclopaedia
Britannica, Inc University of Chicago p 654.
Competing interests: No competing interests
To the Editor BMJ,
Congratulations to Dr.Richard Smith and his team for constantly upgrading
the contents and look of BMJ.Truely now it has the features of an
international standard
medical journal.You desrve all the credit for this hard work. With best
wishes.
MSBasharuthulla.,MD,FACP,FRCP.Ire,FRCP.Glasg.
(no competing interest)
Competing interests: No competing interests
Editor,
Congratulations to all of you in the BMJ London for the new look paper
journal.
We are worried in West Africa. As one of the poorest regions of the
world ( some may say that is not BMJ's problem), most BMJ readers here are
yet to embrace the internet and as such contninue to rely on the paper
BMJ, just as they have done for years for their current medical
information. We feel "deprived" as each new version of the paper BMJ chops
off vital parts from its pages. In your latest transformation, we cannot
even see the names of your editors. We are left to deal with telephone
numbers and email addresses. We feel like someone who dials a phone number
only to be greeted by an annonymous recorded message, you know what I
mean. Then the local editions listing has disappeared altogether, not even
the phone number/email is listed. The electronic bmj.com has not listed
the local editions either, for those of us who can access it.
We in this local edition and our readers are very proud of our links
with a vibrant and innovating BMJ but please take our situation and needs
into consideration as you evolve further.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I am a keen reader of BMJ for few years now. I always found B.M.J. as
very informative and relavent to my work. I am really very happy with the
new changes described in this editorial and was pleasantly surprised with
the new look and format of my most favourite journal. The new way of
B.M.J. classified is great and I am sure that it will be extremely useful.
Its full of so much information; just great. Thanks for the new look of
this journal.
Competing interests: No competing interests
After all the interlectual fights Richard Smith and I have had, I
must congratulate him for the recent renovation of the BMJ. As one of the
fiercest critics of the BMJ, I must say there have been vast improvements
in the presentation of material.
Shall I be so bold as to say, Richard Smith may have become Trendy in
his "not so old age"! Richard and I have often had arguments about the BMJ
making me fall asleep in the past. Many a time do I recall looking at the
old blue cover and turning the pages only to be used as my pillow during
all those finals. I had hoped the editorials would enter my head by
osmosis as I always got cross eyed and bored with the material. Since
graduation, and house jobs, the BMJ seems to present better material fit
for us modern sorts who play Kylie in the car and watch Robbie Williams!
As Patch Adams once said, medicine should be fun. Infact medicine is
fun but for some reason for many years the BMJ seemed to cater for the
retired chaps who sit smoking their cigars in the BMA's leather sofas. As
I have always said, the BMJ needs some pazzazz, a bit of sex and rock and
roll to spice its material up! Its therefore going the the right
direction.
I feel that Richard has done a great job in promoting his magazine
and altering its image and presentation. He is currently more daring in
the way he edits his magazine featuring material that is relevant to
modern doctors. I happen to be a modern doctor with modern ideas. Too many
ideas infact! I hope the BMJ will strive to serve the doctors while having
his hand on the pulse of the medical profession. It is important to get
down to the grass roots issues of today. The real issues that make us
better doctors for our patients - afterall those are whom we serve. Fun
doctors are better doctors and better doctors inspire patients. The BMJ
should therefore reach the parts other magazine cannot reach!
Congratulations Dr Smith and well done on a BMJ renovation that was
long overdue. As your fiercest critic, a compliment from me is quite rare.
At least when it comes, you know that I mean it !
Now all you have to do now Richard is go to work dressed in leathers
- then you yourself will be in the modern age with your magazine !! All
your female writers may well faint ! You only live once ! *wink*
Kind Regards
Dr Rita Pal
Editor
www.nhs-exposed.com
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor
A little suggestion:
On three successive weeks you should produce the BMJ in the style of,
Clegg, Lock and the current issue of Brain. Then you should invite a
random sample of your MEDICAL READERS to vote for their preferences for
the current style of the BMJ as against the other three styles noted
above. And let us dispense with focus groups.
JK Anand
Competing interests: No competing interests
On flying too close to the sun
Dear Dr Smith,
The universal accessibility of bmj.com is not without its own
particular hazards.
Your “poll” on non-diseases has been reported in the general media as
representing the views of the medical profession, although it’s far from
clear that the people who voted in this poll were all or even
predominantly doctors. Among the rapid responses to the poll are comments
suggesting that at least some of the voting was mischievous.
The other week you published research which was widely reported as
suggesting that nurses are “better” than doctors. The BBC health news web
site then used this research to invite its visitors to vote on whether
doctors or nurses give higher quality care. There are no prizes for
guessing the result.
The credibility of the British Medical Journal as a journal of record
for the medical profession has been built up over a century. It would be a
shame to see that credibility dented by attempts to turn the journal into
something it is not.
Yours sincerely,
Dr John Hopkins
Competing interests: No competing interests