This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (16)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Drummond Rennie, MD

JAMA. 1993;270(14):1742-1743.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Here lies the problem: JAMA receives four letters^1-4 highly critical of a study⁵ we have published in JAMA. Should JAMA publish them?

First, is there really a problem? If there is, it certainly does not lie in the fact that the letters are highly critical. Such criticism presents no editorial difficulties because that is what we have to expect, and it's our job to let the authors of studies we publish duke it out with their critics in public. Indeed, I relish such letters because they so often point to issues that neither the authors nor the reviewers and editors had ever imagined, which is the best and most lasting form of peer review. They force me to reassess the published paper, and it's always interesting, and sometimes fun, to see the authors of the original article respond, whether by hitting their critics out of the ballpark, wriggling into . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Dr Rennie is Deputy Editor (West), JAMA.

Reprint requests to JAMA, 515 N State St, Chicago, IL 60610 (Dr Rennie).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?