An open letter to The BMJ editors on qualitative research

Well done to Trish Greenhalgh and colleagues for articulating the frustrations of many researchers at the BMJ’s dismissive approach to qualitative research.1 The authors offer a persuasive argument for a change of approach that I wholeheartedly support, along with many others who have posted a response. It is clear from their examples of the top cited papers that the BMJ readership find qualitative research to be highly pertinent. This makes it all the more exasperating to read the response from BMJ editors that qualitative research should be sent to alternative journals and “targeted at the specialist audience for whom the findings are especially pertinent”.2 Loder et al, go on to argue that important qualitative research may be overlooked in a general medical journal. How can findings related to the delivery of clinical care, the evaluation of complex interventions, clinician-patient interactions, patient voice etc, not be relevant to the readership? Surely the high citation rates achieved by many qualitative BMJ papers are evidence that qualitative findings are certainly not overlooked or considered impertinent.

1. Greenhalgh T, Annandale E, Ashcroft R, et al. An open letter to The BMJ editors on qualitative research. BMJ 2016;352:i563.
2. Loder E, Groves T, Schroter S, et al. Qualitative Research and The BMJ: A response to Greenhalgh and colleagues’ appeal for more. BMJ 2016;352:i641