Screening research papers by reading abstracts
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
EDITOR—As a freelance medical writer and editor, I am always fascinated by what catches the editor's eye and what drives decisions about whether a manuscript will be published or will perish. I thank Groves and Abbasi for confirming my suspicion that editors start the same place we readers do—with the abstract.1 Given the number of articles that make it into publication but fail to catch the reader's attention in the abstract, I shudder to think what the BMJ's daily duty editors must read if 15% to 25% of the articles don't make it past that first brief review of the abstract.
But what really tickled me was the typo that read, "Daily duty editors...can reject manuscripts, send them for eternal review, or pass them to colleagues..." I suspect that "eternal" review is selected for those papers that are neither suitable for external review nor clearly destined for rejection but instead must spend an eternity in review while their authors wait anxiously, forever awaiting a reply from the journal.
I presume this letter has the ideal combination—its observation is correct, but it displays blatant disrespect for the editor—necessary to be selected for eternal review, rather than rapid review or immediate rejection. If I were in the BMJ's shoes, however, I think I'd opt for the latter.
Jonathan N Latham, president
PharmaScribe, Skillman, NJ 08558, USA jlatham@pharmascribe.com
Competing interests: None declared.
References
Groves T, Abbasi K. Screening research papers by reading abstracts. BMJ 2004;329: 470-1. (28 August.)
But what really tickled me was the typo that read, "Daily duty editors...can reject manuscripts, send them for eternal review, or pass them to colleagues..." I suspect that "eternal" review is selected for those papers that are neither suitable for external review nor clearly destined for rejection but instead must spend an eternity in review while their authors wait anxiously, forever awaiting a reply from the journal.
I presume this letter has the ideal combination—its observation is correct, but it displays blatant disrespect for the editor—necessary to be selected for eternal review, rather than rapid review or immediate rejection. If I were in the BMJ's shoes, however, I think I'd opt for the latter.
Jonathan N Latham, president
PharmaScribe, Skillman, NJ 08558, USA jlatham@pharmascribe.com
Competing interests: None declared.
References
Groves T, Abbasi K. Screening research papers by reading abstracts. BMJ 2004;329: 470-1. (28 August.)