It’s nearly two weeks since The BMJ published two updated Cochrane reviews on the benefits and harms in influenza of the neuraminidase inhibitors oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza). These research articles were accompanied by The BMJ’s peer review comments and other supplementary files and appendices and several commissioned articles. […]
djfhdkfdkjfhakdjfhkadsfhldksjfajdfkdajfhkdlsfhkdlsfhkdsfhskldfhdkfhdsklCategory: Readers’ editor
Readers’ editor: Clichéd series titles, and “Save our Des”
Last month the journal launched the first in a series of in-depth reviews written by international experts—State of the Art—to highlight important areas of clinical medicine and academic inquiry. So far we have published two. The first article examined the mechanisms and clinical implications of neuropathic pain and, according to Google Analytics, has been viewed […]
djfhdkfdkjfhakdjfhkadsfhldksjfajdfkdajfhkdlsfhkdlsfhkdsfhskldfhdkfhdsklReaders’ editor: Is the term “Chinese wall” racist?
At The BMJ we often talk about the “Chinese wall,” a clear demarcation between the advertising sales and editorial teams. This safeguard helps to avoid conflicts of interest, and means advertisers have no prior knowledge of an article that may mention their product, either positively or negatively. But is the term racist? […]
djfhdkfdkjfhakdjfhkadsfhldksjfajdfkdajfhkdlsfhkdlsfhkdsfhskldfhdkfhdsklJett Aislabie: Airport noise and cardiovascular disease
Last week we published a cluster of papers on airport noise and cardiovascular disease. One US based study found a statistically significant association between exposure to aircraft noise and risk of hospitalisation for cardiovascular diseases among older people living near airports, and another found that high levels of aircraft noise were associated with increased risks […]
djfhdkfdkjfhakdjfhkadsfhldksjfajdfkdajfhkdlsfhkdlsfhkdsfhskldfhdkfhdsklReaders’ editor: Where has all the research news gone?
In March 2005 Ali Tonks wrote her first weekly Short Cuts column, a summary of nine papers published in the world’s other main general medical journals. The following year we published the first of Richard Lehman’s weekly journal review blogs. […]
djfhdkfdkjfhakdjfhkadsfhldksjfajdfkdajfhkdlsfhkdlsfhkdsfhskldfhdkfhdsklJett Aislabie: Is all sponsorship equal?
Advertising and sponsorship are generally seen as necessary evils by us here at The BMJ. While we are positively fizzing with ideas for new content, we know that bringing it to you, and as wide an audience as possible, is much more likely with the support of sponsors. Having said that we would like to […]
djfhdkfdkjfhakdjfhkadsfhldksjfajdfkdajfhkdlsfhkdlsfhkdsfhskldfhdkfhdsklReaders’ editor: Homophobia and the BMJ
In December 2012 Doug Kamerow asked in his regular BMJ column if gay marriage improves health. Eight months later the article attracted its first response. Gregory Gardner, a GP in the West Midlands, wanted to know why Kamerow had not mentioned the impact of same sex marriage on the health and wellbeing of children. Dr Gardner’s […]
djfhdkfdkjfhakdjfhkadsfhldksjfajdfkdajfhkdlsfhkdlsfhkdsfhskldfhdkfhdsklReaders’ editor: The Liverpool Care Pathway—anyone care outside the UK?
Columnist Charles Moore asked in The Spectator magazine last week if the Liverpool Care Pathway might have inspired more confidence if it had been called, say, the Oxford Care Pathway. Was Moore referring to Oxford as an ancient seat of learning and innovation, or lazily perpetuating the myth that Liverpool is synonomous with riots, poverty, […]
djfhdkfdkjfhakdjfhkadsfhldksjfajdfkdajfhkdlsfhkdlsfhkdsfhskldfhdkfhdsklReaders’ editor: Authors “ignoring” readers
Joginder Anand, a longstanding reader of the BMJ, wants to know how we can encourage authors to respond. In a recent email he asks: “Should the BMJ not make it mandatory for the leading authors of all articles to respond to criticisms or requests for clarifications? My question back to him is how? What would […]
djfhdkfdkjfhakdjfhkadsfhldksjfajdfkdajfhkdlsfhkdlsfhkdsfhskldfhdkfhdsklReaders’ editor: Influence beyond the impact factor
The BMJ’s impact and influence should be measured by more than just established metrics such as impact factor. But the new figures, released two weeks ago, are very welcome. The journal’s impact factor rose more than 20% to 17.215. My first thought on discovering this was that a strategic aim to increase the impact of the BMJ’s scholarly content is starting to […]
djfhdkfdkjfhakdjfhkadsfhldksjfajdfkdajfhkdlsfhkdlsfhkdsfhskldfhdkfhdskl