Editors Reply 英文参考文献.docVIP

Open access, freely available online Correspondence Unjusti?ed Restrictions on Letters to the Editor Box 1.“Editors Should Promote Self-Correction in Science and Participate in Efforts to Improve the Practice of Scienti?c Investigation by: Douglas G. Altman Editors of medical journals accept that published research should be open to comment and correction in published correspondence ([1]; Box 1). “Post-publication peer review” enables comments on, clari?cations of, and corrections to published research. All journals should have a correspondence page for this purpose. I previously criticised the effective “statute of limitations” in several leading general medical journals “whereby authors of papers are immune to disclosure of methodological weaknesses once some arbitrary (short) period has elapsed” [2]. Such a time limit discourages post-publication peer review, with potential correspondents deterred by the short and unambiguous deadline. I suggested that journals with such a policy should reconsider. The word limit on that article precluded additional adverse comments on journals’ word limits for letters, although they were presented in Table 2 of that article [2]. ? “Publishing corrections, retractions, and letters critical of articles published in their own journal. ? “Playing an active role in investigating and preventing fraud. ? “Taking responsibility for improving the level of scienti?c investigation and medical writing in the larger community of potential authors. ? “Giving authors an opportunity to review and approve edited manuscripts before they are published. ? “Participating in efforts to detect and prevent publication bias—for example, by collaborating with registries of controlled trials and publishing protocols.” Source: [1]. 2. 3. 4. Altman DG (2002) Poor-quality medical research: What can journals do? JAMA 287: 2765–2767. Mullan Z (2003) Lancet correspondence: Old letters, new rules. Lancet 361: 12. Curfman GD, Graham A, Lindenfelser L, Ander