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.
Hickey (1)has queried the inclusion criteria of 'Medline' (and hence
'Pubmed').
The problem is perhaps wider than he realises: Medline has had a
reluctance to index major statistical journals which include substantial
amounts of medically relevant material.
To take an example, 'Web of Knowledge'indexes a major paper on the
Bristol Children's Heart inquiry in 'Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society'(2) but Pubmed does not seem to.
I can only suspect that other areas of equal relevance are excluded.
A further issue where policy could be clarified is the inclusion or
otherwise of conference abstracts published as supplements: quite simply,
some are referenced and some are not. It may be that there is a valid
scientific reason for the difference but we don't know what it is.
I do not suggest that 'Medline' is necessarily wrong or that 'Web of
Knowledge' and 'Embase' are better, but it is important to realise that
all of these have limitations and should not be treated as infallible.
(2)Spiegelhalter, DJ; Aylin, P; Best, NG; Evans, SJW; Murray, GD
(2002)'Commissioned analysis of surgical performance using routine
data:lessons from the Bristol inquiry' 'Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society- Series A' 165(2) 191-221
Competing interests:
I also have material which appears on 'Web of Knowledge' but not 'Pubmed'
Inclusivity of 'Medline'
Hickey (1)has queried the inclusion criteria of 'Medline' (and hence
'Pubmed').
The problem is perhaps wider than he realises: Medline has had a
reluctance to index major statistical journals which include substantial
amounts of medically relevant material.
To take an example, 'Web of Knowledge'indexes a major paper on the
Bristol Children's Heart inquiry in 'Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society'(2) but Pubmed does not seem to.
I can only suspect that other areas of equal relevance are excluded.
A further issue where policy could be clarified is the inclusion or
otherwise of conference abstracts published as supplements: quite simply,
some are referenced and some are not. It may be that there is a valid
scientific reason for the difference but we don't know what it is.
I do not suggest that 'Medline' is necessarily wrong or that 'Web of
Knowledge' and 'Embase' are better, but it is important to realise that
all of these have limitations and should not be treated as infallible.
Phil McShane
References
(1)BMJ 2006;333:45 (1 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7557.45-a
(2)Spiegelhalter, DJ; Aylin, P; Best, NG; Evans, SJW; Murray, GD
(2002)'Commissioned analysis of surgical performance using routine
data:lessons from the Bristol inquiry' 'Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society- Series A' 165(2) 191-221
Competing interests:
I also have material which appears on 'Web of Knowledge' but not 'Pubmed'
Competing interests: No competing interests