Adequacy of authors' replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor

cohort study

Peter C Gøtzsche, Tony Delamothe, Fiona Godlee, Andreas Lundh

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether substantive criticism in electronic letters to the editor, defined as a problem that could invalidate the research or reduce its reliability, is adequately addressed by the authors.

DESIGN: Cohort study.

SETTING: BMJ between October 2005 and September 2007. Inclusion criteria Research papers generating substantive criticism in the rapid responses section on bmj.com.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Severity of criticism (minor, moderate, or major) as judged by two editors and extent to which the criticism was addressed by authors (fully, partly, or not) as judged by two editors and the critics.

RESULTS: A substantive criticism was raised against 105 of 350 (30%, 95% confidence interval 25% to 35%) included research papers, and of these the authors had responded to 47 (45%, 35% to 54%). The severity of the criticism was the same in those papers as in the 58 without author replies (mean score 2.2 in both groups, P=0.72). For the 47 criticisms with replies, there was no relation between the severity of the criticism and the adequacy of the reply, neither as judged by the editors (P=0.88 and P=0.95, respectively) nor by the critics (P=0.83; response rate 85%). However, the critics were much more critical of the replies than the editors (average score 2.3 v 1.4, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Authors are reluctant to respond to criticisms of their work, although they are not less likely to respond when criticisms are severe. Editors should ensure that authors take relevant criticism seriously and respond adequately to it.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftB M J (Online)
Vol/bind341
Sider (fra-til)c3926
ISSN1756-1833
StatusUdgivet - 10. aug. 2010

Fingeraftryk

Cohort Studies
Research
Confidence Intervals

Citer dette

Gøtzsche, Peter C ; Delamothe, Tony ; Godlee, Fiona ; Lundh, Andreas. / Adequacy of authors' replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor : cohort study. I: B M J (Online). 2010 ; Bind 341. s. c3926.
@article{221219835c2547f6a0edd9399f6ea113,
title = "Adequacy of authors' replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor: cohort study",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether substantive criticism in electronic letters to the editor, defined as a problem that could invalidate the research or reduce its reliability, is adequately addressed by the authors.DESIGN: Cohort study.SETTING: BMJ between October 2005 and September 2007. Inclusion criteria Research papers generating substantive criticism in the rapid responses section on bmj.com.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Severity of criticism (minor, moderate, or major) as judged by two editors and extent to which the criticism was addressed by authors (fully, partly, or not) as judged by two editors and the critics.RESULTS: A substantive criticism was raised against 105 of 350 (30{\%}, 95{\%} confidence interval 25{\%} to 35{\%}) included research papers, and of these the authors had responded to 47 (45{\%}, 35{\%} to 54{\%}). The severity of the criticism was the same in those papers as in the 58 without author replies (mean score 2.2 in both groups, P=0.72). For the 47 criticisms with replies, there was no relation between the severity of the criticism and the adequacy of the reply, neither as judged by the editors (P=0.88 and P=0.95, respectively) nor by the critics (P=0.83; response rate 85{\%}). However, the critics were much more critical of the replies than the editors (average score 2.3 v 1.4, P<0.001).CONCLUSIONS: Authors are reluctant to respond to criticisms of their work, although they are not less likely to respond when criticisms are severe. Editors should ensure that authors take relevant criticism seriously and respond adequately to it.",
keywords = "Authorship, Cohort Studies, Correspondence as Topic, Editorial Policies, Periodicals as Topic, United Kingdom, Journal Article",
author = "G{\o}tzsche, {Peter C} and Tony Delamothe and Fiona Godlee and Andreas Lundh",
year = "2010",
month = "8",
day = "10",
language = "English",
volume = "341",
pages = "c3926",
journal = "B M J (Online)",
issn = "1756-1833",
publisher = "B M J Group",

}

Adequacy of authors' replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor : cohort study. / Gøtzsche, Peter C; Delamothe, Tony; Godlee, Fiona; Lundh, Andreas.

I: B M J (Online), Bind 341, 10.08.2010, s. c3926.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adequacy of authors' replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor

T2 - cohort study

AU - Gøtzsche, Peter C

AU - Delamothe, Tony

AU - Godlee, Fiona

AU - Lundh, Andreas

PY - 2010/8/10

Y1 - 2010/8/10

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether substantive criticism in electronic letters to the editor, defined as a problem that could invalidate the research or reduce its reliability, is adequately addressed by the authors.DESIGN: Cohort study.SETTING: BMJ between October 2005 and September 2007. Inclusion criteria Research papers generating substantive criticism in the rapid responses section on bmj.com.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Severity of criticism (minor, moderate, or major) as judged by two editors and extent to which the criticism was addressed by authors (fully, partly, or not) as judged by two editors and the critics.RESULTS: A substantive criticism was raised against 105 of 350 (30%, 95% confidence interval 25% to 35%) included research papers, and of these the authors had responded to 47 (45%, 35% to 54%). The severity of the criticism was the same in those papers as in the 58 without author replies (mean score 2.2 in both groups, P=0.72). For the 47 criticisms with replies, there was no relation between the severity of the criticism and the adequacy of the reply, neither as judged by the editors (P=0.88 and P=0.95, respectively) nor by the critics (P=0.83; response rate 85%). However, the critics were much more critical of the replies than the editors (average score 2.3 v 1.4, P<0.001).CONCLUSIONS: Authors are reluctant to respond to criticisms of their work, although they are not less likely to respond when criticisms are severe. Editors should ensure that authors take relevant criticism seriously and respond adequately to it.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether substantive criticism in electronic letters to the editor, defined as a problem that could invalidate the research or reduce its reliability, is adequately addressed by the authors.DESIGN: Cohort study.SETTING: BMJ between October 2005 and September 2007. Inclusion criteria Research papers generating substantive criticism in the rapid responses section on bmj.com.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Severity of criticism (minor, moderate, or major) as judged by two editors and extent to which the criticism was addressed by authors (fully, partly, or not) as judged by two editors and the critics.RESULTS: A substantive criticism was raised against 105 of 350 (30%, 95% confidence interval 25% to 35%) included research papers, and of these the authors had responded to 47 (45%, 35% to 54%). The severity of the criticism was the same in those papers as in the 58 without author replies (mean score 2.2 in both groups, P=0.72). For the 47 criticisms with replies, there was no relation between the severity of the criticism and the adequacy of the reply, neither as judged by the editors (P=0.88 and P=0.95, respectively) nor by the critics (P=0.83; response rate 85%). However, the critics were much more critical of the replies than the editors (average score 2.3 v 1.4, P<0.001).CONCLUSIONS: Authors are reluctant to respond to criticisms of their work, although they are not less likely to respond when criticisms are severe. Editors should ensure that authors take relevant criticism seriously and respond adequately to it.

KW - Authorship

KW - Cohort Studies

KW - Correspondence as Topic

KW - Editorial Policies

KW - Periodicals as Topic

KW - United Kingdom

KW - Journal Article

M3 - Journal article

VL - 341

SP - c3926

JO - B M J (Online)

JF - B M J (Online)

SN - 1756-1833

ER -