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.
Editor-Alderson and Roberts eloquently describe a serious flaw in the
current system for publishing systematic reviews 1. As they state,
publication bias results in censorship of uncertainty. One solution to
this problem would be to
remove the power of censorship from journal editors by creating web-based
resources for publishing the results of systematic reviews such as the e-
biomed 2 site proposed by the National Institutes of Health.
It has been
proposed that virtually any legitimate work would be published on such a
site. This would level the playing field between systematic reviews with
uncertainty and those with dramatic results. Rapid publication of
systematic reviews on the web would have other advantages too. Systematic
reviews could grow on the web with new trials added to an existing review
once they met pre-existing inclusion criteria. This would eliminate
unnecessary clinical trials and prevent duplication of existing research.
Flaws in a systematic review could be identified by browsers and corrected
instantly.
Alderson and Roberts1 appeal for less censorship of uncertainty in the
publication of systematic reviews. Perhaps the best way to ensure that
uncertainty gets a fairer hearing is to remove censorship altogether.
References
1. Alderson, P., Roberts, I. (2000). Should journals publish systematic
reviews that find no evidence to guide practice? Examples from head injury
research. BMJ 320: 376-377.
2. Delamothe, T., Smith, R. (1999). Moving beyond journals: the
future arrives with a crash. BMJ 318: 1637-1639.
Alderson and Roberts argue that the nature of journals ((ie the fact
that, in a commercial environment, editors choose the more interesting
articles on offer) is distorting science. Quite so.
But the answer is not to attempt to change the nature of journals
(goodness knows we need better communication!) but to seek new models that
will separate the validation of science from the reporting of it.
Electronic publishing (where selection on economic grounds is no longer an
issue) will enable us to do this, provided that we don't get caught up
trying to make commercially based journals what they can never be - bias
free.
Perhaps we should remove censorship altogether
Editor-Alderson and Roberts eloquently describe a serious flaw in the
current system for publishing systematic reviews 1. As they state,
publication bias results in censorship of uncertainty. One solution to
this problem would be to
remove the power of censorship from journal editors by creating web-based
resources for publishing the results of systematic reviews such as the e-
biomed 2 site proposed by the National Institutes of Health.
It has been
proposed that virtually any legitimate work would be published on such a
site. This would level the playing field between systematic reviews with
uncertainty and those with dramatic results. Rapid publication of
systematic reviews on the web would have other advantages too. Systematic
reviews could grow on the web with new trials added to an existing review
once they met pre-existing inclusion criteria. This would eliminate
unnecessary clinical trials and prevent duplication of existing research.
Flaws in a systematic review could be identified by browsers and corrected
instantly.
Alderson and Roberts1 appeal for less censorship of uncertainty in the
publication of systematic reviews. Perhaps the best way to ensure that
uncertainty gets a fairer hearing is to remove censorship altogether.
References
1. Alderson, P., Roberts, I. (2000). Should journals publish systematic
reviews that find no evidence to guide practice? Examples from head injury
research. BMJ 320: 376-377.
2. Delamothe, T., Smith, R. (1999). Moving beyond journals: the
future arrives with a crash. BMJ 318: 1637-1639.
Brian McNamara,
Specialist Registrar in Clinical Neurophysiology,
Box 124, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, CB2 2QQ.
Competing interests: No competing interests