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 have a reference to a letter to the BMJ written in 1999 (1). The
author believed that the GMC's then current proposals for revalidation
were flawed. That was 12 years ago, since when nothing has happened of any
consequence other than repeated episodes of navel-gazing and rumination,
and during which many "eminent, educated people" have spent a lot of time
in committee rooms away from their clinical practice. This is because it
is impossible to devise a sensible revalidation system for doctors that
can satisfactorily deal with all types of doctor in all types of
circumstance. It was obvious from the start ("We must stop another
Shipman!") and it remains obvious now. So it is not surprising that all
that has emerged from the GMC is a constant stream of unintelligible non-prose.
1. Grant IWB. GMC's current proposals for revalidation are flawed
[letter]. BMJ 1999;319:53-54.
No style; no surprise
I have a reference to a letter to the BMJ written in 1999 (1). The
author believed that the GMC's then current proposals for revalidation
were flawed. That was 12 years ago, since when nothing has happened of any
consequence other than repeated episodes of navel-gazing and rumination,
and during which many "eminent, educated people" have spent a lot of time
in committee rooms away from their clinical practice. This is because it
is impossible to devise a sensible revalidation system for doctors that
can satisfactorily deal with all types of doctor in all types of
circumstance. It was obvious from the start ("We must stop another
Shipman!") and it remains obvious now. So it is not surprising that all
that has emerged from the GMC is a constant stream of unintelligible non-prose.
1. Grant IWB. GMC's current proposals for revalidation are flawed
[letter]. BMJ 1999;319:53-54.
Competing interests: No competing interests