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.
While we all want some 'quantitative' index to assess quality, we
commit one basic mistake. We may agree (even if not always correct) that a
journal with high impact factor may publish high 'quality' papers. On the
other hand, it is unscientific to throw out as bad a paper published in a
'low impact' journal. I cannot think of a more illogical and unscientific
conclusion than this. Yet, day in day out, this is what all the committees
which decide on promotions and grants do. They never even read the title
of the paper. Most of the committees look only at the title of the
journal! I have come across one more practice. When scientists apply for
promotion, they are ranked by adding the impact factor of the papers they
have published, divide it by the number of years (usually 5)under
consideration. We call ourselves scientists!
Can we come out with a more scientific way of assessing people?
V.D.Ramanathan MB, PhD (London).
Competing interests:
I am scientist whose grants and promotions depend on where I publish my papers and to that extent I am affected by impact factors. However, I do not have any competing financial interests.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
17 March 2007
Vadakkuppattu D Ramanathan
Deputy Director (Sr Grade), Tuberculosis Research Centre,
Fundamental flaws in impact factor
While we all want some 'quantitative' index to assess quality, we
commit one basic mistake. We may agree (even if not always correct) that a
journal with high impact factor may publish high 'quality' papers. On the
other hand, it is unscientific to throw out as bad a paper published in a
'low impact' journal. I cannot think of a more illogical and unscientific
conclusion than this. Yet, day in day out, this is what all the committees
which decide on promotions and grants do. They never even read the title
of the paper. Most of the committees look only at the title of the
journal! I have come across one more practice. When scientists apply for
promotion, they are ranked by adding the impact factor of the papers they
have published, divide it by the number of years (usually 5)under
consideration. We call ourselves scientists!
Can we come out with a more scientific way of assessing people?
V.D.Ramanathan MB, PhD (London).
Competing interests:
I am scientist whose grants and promotions depend on where I publish my papers and to that extent I am affected by impact factors. However, I do not have any competing financial interests.
Competing interests: No competing interests