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 just would like one reviewer to receive two papers at the same
time: one from MIT, Boston, USA and the other from University of Dhaka in
Bangladesh. There is no way, a person can not be biased as to the quality
of science performed according to some pre-perceived notions about a
country. Its part of human nature. And this exactly should be avoided if
the major aim of the peer review process is to promote good and fair
evaluation of science. In the open review process, the reviewer will be
forced to review the manuscript content and not be clouded by the economy,
the GDP, the international stature of a given country.
Open peer review: The best review
I just would like one reviewer to receive two papers at the same
time: one from MIT, Boston, USA and the other from University of Dhaka in
Bangladesh. There is no way, a person can not be biased as to the quality
of science performed according to some pre-perceived notions about a
country. Its part of human nature. And this exactly should be avoided if
the major aim of the peer review process is to promote good and fair
evaluation of science. In the open review process, the reviewer will be
forced to review the manuscript content and not be clouded by the economy,
the GDP, the international stature of a given country.
Competing interests: No competing interests