Screening research papers by reading abstracts
BMJ 2004; 329 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7464.470 (Published 26 August 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;329:470
All rapid responses
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.
As editorial board member of two journals, and reviewer for many
more, I wonder whether Groves and Abbasi's statement on how BMJ processes
submitted manuscripts contains more than a kernel of truth when they
write: "Daily duty editors make initial decisions within 24 hours of
submission of research papers and can reject manuscripts, send them for
eternal review, or pass them to colleagues for a further opinion almost
instantly using our online manuscript processing system (submit.bmj,com)."
Communication within BMJ and between its editors and authors on the one
hand, and editors and reviewers on the other, may be instantaneous, but
getting responses from external reviewers continuous to depend on their
time availability, and to an author it may indeed seem like an eternity
before that editorial decision (whether "accept" in its manifold
varieties, or "reject") comes back.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Groves and Abassi should be congratulated for their recent editorial
review on the whole publication process but most of all for their
priceless typo 'send them for eternal review' - never a truer word spoken!
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Submitting an abstract is the usual practice for paper acceptance at
scientific
meetings so screening research papers by reading abstracts seem
reasonable.
The question is, will the BMJ allow authors to simply submit an abstract
for
screening and then invite them to submit the full paper for consideration
if
the paper gets past this hurdle? This will concentrate the minds of the
authors and will avoid some of the problems with abstracts that the
editorial
lists.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
"Daily duty editors make initial decisions within 24 hours of
submission of research papers and can reject manuscripts, send them for
eternal review..."
A Freudian slip perhaps?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I hope that "eternal review" used in this editorial was a typo, and did not refer to a Kafka-esque process of articles circulating around the postal service (or internet) ad infinitum. I am pleased to say that this is not an accurate description of the review process for papers I have been involved in, which have been submmitted to the BMJ. These have been rejected swiftly and efficiently.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Were the authors being ironic or just honest when referring to the
"eternal review" process?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Often the subconscious reveals what the superego tries to hide. You
say that “Daily duty editors make initial decisions within 24 hours of
submission of research papers and can reject manuscripts, send them for
eternal review, or pass them to colleagues for a further opinion almost
instantly using our online manuscript processing system”. Very often, some
of my papers sent to many journals have had an ‘eternal’ review. Not long
ago, one prestigious British journal kept my paper for 6 months and after
repeated correspondence told me that they did not have a suitable reviewer
and could I suggest one for them!
V.D.RAMANATHAN.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
"...and can reject manuscripts, send them for eternal review, or pass
them to colleagues for a further opinion..."
I know it sometimes feels like it takes forever but for the BMJ to
admit it......
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
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. Thank you for confirming my
suspicion that editors start the same place we readers do -- with the
abstract. 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 your 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 your reply.
In fact, I presume this letter has that ideal combination--the
observation is correct, but the letter displays blatant disrespect for the
editor--necessary to be selected for eternal review, rather than rapid
review or immediate rejection. If I were in your shoes, however, I think
I'd opt for the latter.
Eternally yours,
Jonathan Latham
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Screening research papers by reading abstracts - A Freudian slip?
Editors. We read with interest your editorial on screening research
papers by reading abstracts alone.
Your typographical error regarding eternal review (2nd paragraph,
13th line)instead of external review is a true Freudian slip if we ever
saw one! Perhaps you should have included your technical editor in the
screening process for this article!
On a more serious note, we feel that authors from smaller
subspecialties such as ours (Urology), often feel aggrieved that research
they consider pertinant for dissemination to a wider medical readership
such as the one the BMJ caters for, is rejected without suitable external
review on the whim of one or two daily duty editors who may have little or
no experience of that subspecialty. In our opinion it would be better if
these manuscripts were sent to "second line" editors for further opinion
before considering appropriate external review.
In a later study to the one mentioned in your article, Pitkin et al.,
assessed abstracts accompanying research papers in six medical journals
including yours (1). The proportion of deficient abstracts varied widely
(18%-68%). This shows that data in the abstract that are inconsistent with
or absent from the articles body are common, even in large-circulation
general medical journals such as The BMJ.
Whilst we agree abstracts should be accurate and reflect the true
content of the paper this may not always be possible in explicit terms and
hence we urge care with early rejection of articles especially those from
the subspecialties. Otherwise you run the risk of rejecting potentially
high class work.
1. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in
abstracts of published research articles. JAMA 1999 Mar 24-31; 281: 1110-1
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests