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 the BMJ group tries to reassure all but stressing that “ self-reported diversity data cannot be seen, accessed, or used by anyone during the manuscript submission or peer review process” and that “ BMJ journals want to publish the best research, regardless of the gender, race, or ethnicity (or any other personal characteristic) of the authors, and we want to ensure that we are not perpetuating barriers to publication that hold back career progression”, ultimately the decision to publish rests with the editors not the peer reviewers and similarly when to publish is also external to the submission and peer review process.
Unless the BMJ editors specifically states that the editorial committee is blinded to these diversity information at the time of determination to publish (it is unclear if the manuscripts were deidentified at this stage based on the information page -ref 1), otherwise it is not hard to deduce these data from the authors’ name.
I understand the need to promote diversity In authorship of published manuscripts but ultimately the reputation and influence of any scientific journal would be based on the quality and impact of papers it publish, which should be based solely on merit demonstrated within the writings, rather than the identity of the authors.
There is inherent danger if the manuscript acceptance process had any hint of affirmation action and drawing attention to certain papers as “special” feature (based on author identity) will only perpetuate certain stereotypical myths.
Lastly even if the decision to accept a manuscript is made when the submissions are de-identified, it does not automatically mean the timing of publication (either as part of the formal issue or featured as early access electronically) is safe from manipulation, particularly if a quota (either self-imposed or as part of external agreement) is at stake. This may mean a paper may get fast track to publication (over another) based on author identity in order to meet such quota before a annual dateline; this may cost some authors the prestige of first-to-publish in a new phenomenon/idea, if their paper were delayed for a few months to accommodate earlier publication of papers with certain author identities.
At the end, this editorial move can be interpreted in many ways unintended and may very well be like opening a can of worms
Will the BMJ also ensure that the first-listed author's name reflects his or her significant contribution, and is not being used as a distinguished 'hook' to ensure publication?
Potentially opening a can of worms while collecting diversity data
Dear Editors
While the BMJ group tries to reassure all but stressing that “ self-reported diversity data cannot be seen, accessed, or used by anyone during the manuscript submission or peer review process” and that “ BMJ journals want to publish the best research, regardless of the gender, race, or ethnicity (or any other personal characteristic) of the authors, and we want to ensure that we are not perpetuating barriers to publication that hold back career progression”, ultimately the decision to publish rests with the editors not the peer reviewers and similarly when to publish is also external to the submission and peer review process.
Unless the BMJ editors specifically states that the editorial committee is blinded to these diversity information at the time of determination to publish (it is unclear if the manuscripts were deidentified at this stage based on the information page -ref 1), otherwise it is not hard to deduce these data from the authors’ name.
I understand the need to promote diversity In authorship of published manuscripts but ultimately the reputation and influence of any scientific journal would be based on the quality and impact of papers it publish, which should be based solely on merit demonstrated within the writings, rather than the identity of the authors.
There is inherent danger if the manuscript acceptance process had any hint of affirmation action and drawing attention to certain papers as “special” feature (based on author identity) will only perpetuate certain stereotypical myths.
Lastly even if the decision to accept a manuscript is made when the submissions are de-identified, it does not automatically mean the timing of publication (either as part of the formal issue or featured as early access electronically) is safe from manipulation, particularly if a quota (either self-imposed or as part of external agreement) is at stake. This may mean a paper may get fast track to publication (over another) based on author identity in order to meet such quota before a annual dateline; this may cost some authors the prestige of first-to-publish in a new phenomenon/idea, if their paper were delayed for a few months to accommodate earlier publication of papers with certain author identities.
At the end, this editorial move can be interpreted in many ways unintended and may very well be like opening a can of worms
Reference
1. https://authors.bmj.com/after-submitting/peer-review-process/
Competing interests: No competing interests