Joy of rapid responses
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
EDITOR—Fazel's emotional appeal for less rudeness and greater respect from rapid responders on bmj.com sparked off numerous lively responses.1 They roughly divide into those who agree with her that the tone is unacceptable (even if the argument is sound), those who agree but think that readers can decide themselves what they want to read and believe, those who think she might be overreacting, and those who go off at a tangent completely, thus showing the utility of responses in stimulating debate in unforeseen ways. Some responses are funny, and most are gently sympathetic. The whole debate gives a good insight into what readers see as the function of rapid responses.
The offended faction includes Norwegian scientist Ulf Dahle, whose career experiences echo Fazel's. "It is funny how some scientists lack the critical thinking that is necessary in their profession, when it comes to social behaviour," he muses. Miles Witham from Dundee takes an equally dim view: "How do we expect people to stay in medicine when the atmosphere is often so poisonous?"
Alex Thain from Inverness wonders whether the lack of constructive feedback identifies a skill need but points out that open debate in an adult and mutually respectful way does not preclude humour. Italian correspondent Giovanni Frisoni thinks that maybe respondents should not be quite so impulsive, to avoid offending.
No editorial censorship is necessary in the opinion of Ghufran Syed, Akheel Syed, Wendy Mclean, and Adam Jacobs, who all argue that readers are perfectly capable of making up their own minds and do not give equal weight to all they read.
Jay Ilangaratne finds the criticism levelled at the article entirely justified and even suggests posting papers anonymously before publication to invite "open peer review." Lalith Chandrakantha from Northampton, however, wonders whether the BMJ should ape the "general media" in giving equal importance to all opinions or whether it should be selective. In any case, most respondents make a strong plea for leaving the current policy for posting rapid responses unchanged.
Among those who are prepared to see the funny side are John Corish from St John's in Newfoundland and Labrador, who asks Fazel to stop taking herself so seriously and suggests that rapid responses may help to make "eminently forgettable" articles linger in the memory for a few hours longer. Others point out that to publish inherently means to invite criticism and that criticising the work of others is always easier than actually doing the work.
Birte Twisselmann, technical editor
BMJ
Competing interests: None declared.
References
Electronic responses. Why I am a reluctant rapid responder. bmj.com 2004. bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7436/413#Responses (accessed 5 Mar 2004).
The offended faction includes Norwegian scientist Ulf Dahle, whose career experiences echo Fazel's. "It is funny how some scientists lack the critical thinking that is necessary in their profession, when it comes to social behaviour," he muses. Miles Witham from Dundee takes an equally dim view: "How do we expect people to stay in medicine when the atmosphere is often so poisonous?"
Alex Thain from Inverness wonders whether the lack of constructive feedback identifies a skill need but points out that open debate in an adult and mutually respectful way does not preclude humour. Italian correspondent Giovanni Frisoni thinks that maybe respondents should not be quite so impulsive, to avoid offending.
No editorial censorship is necessary in the opinion of Ghufran Syed, Akheel Syed, Wendy Mclean, and Adam Jacobs, who all argue that readers are perfectly capable of making up their own minds and do not give equal weight to all they read.
Jay Ilangaratne finds the criticism levelled at the article entirely justified and even suggests posting papers anonymously before publication to invite "open peer review." Lalith Chandrakantha from Northampton, however, wonders whether the BMJ should ape the "general media" in giving equal importance to all opinions or whether it should be selective. In any case, most respondents make a strong plea for leaving the current policy for posting rapid responses unchanged.
Among those who are prepared to see the funny side are John Corish from St John's in Newfoundland and Labrador, who asks Fazel to stop taking herself so seriously and suggests that rapid responses may help to make "eminently forgettable" articles linger in the memory for a few hours longer. Others point out that to publish inherently means to invite criticism and that criticising the work of others is always easier than actually doing the work.
Birte Twisselmann, technical editor
BMJ
Competing interests: None declared.
References
Electronic responses. Why I am a reluctant rapid responder. bmj.com 2004. bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7436/413#Responses (accessed 5 Mar 2004).