We know why review articles and research articles are written and published and the associated process. However, the aim and the core structure of a Letter to Editor is unclear to me. Any insights?
I am the editor of Computers in Biology and Medicine (Elsevier). I may accept letters that point out problems and beneficial points of recent papers published in the journal. However these need to be reviewed for content and quality, and I will also send to the authors being addressed by the letter to seek their comment. If it seems like this letter can add to the quality of the research and advance science, I will publish it. I will not publish a grandstanding letter which seeks to show any perceived superiority of the letter writer's own methods. Letters to the Editor can also be used to publish short research works which do merit a full length paper.
I think that some journals accept a comments from readers about a published article that has to be discussed and highlighted.
I also think so. If you are in time, and your arguments are considerable, the chance for a letter is not that bad. Yet, it also has the 'con' that it leaves the discussion to the readers and the author of the publication. Thereby the journal can stay out of the line. While this is often okay to me, there are also some examples, where I would have appreciated a journal's statement (i.e. when the discussion discovers some flaws in the published article, where editors and peer-reviewers also have to take their part of responsibility). One example for such a reaction by (or a dilemma for) a (high ranked) journal is sketched out by me in another discussion
www.researchgate.net/post/Has_anyone_experience_of_research_misconduct_either_someone_knowingly_submitting_fraudulent_data_or_acceptance_of_clearly_flawed_papers_by_journals?cp=re68_x_p2&ch=reg&loginT=JLPUQTIlF5AiRICDUimqpC-p54dYYOb9zsQIeQpRNbs%2C&pli=1
Few journals also have the option to use letters or associated types of articles to discuss a 'hot topic' not related to their own content. Hence, with this kind of publication I don't have any experience (yet), and I think you have to find the thin red line between 'politics' that a journal considers a comment on another journals behaviour. Following the link, the above mentioned statement is a good candidate making me willing to try this way.
I am the editor of Computers in Biology and Medicine (Elsevier). I may accept letters that point out problems and beneficial points of recent papers published in the journal. However these need to be reviewed for content and quality, and I will also send to the authors being addressed by the letter to seek their comment. If it seems like this letter can add to the quality of the research and advance science, I will publish it. I will not publish a grandstanding letter which seeks to show any perceived superiority of the letter writer's own methods. Letters to the Editor can also be used to publish short research works which do merit a full length paper.
Thanks Eduardo for clarification. That is also the way my letters have been handled – fair enough. I don't think letters should be misused to willingly make another article look bad. Especially not, if you yourself claim to have a better method: Publish your own method and let the reader decide. I don't know if you have followed my link. Its the missing discussion of a negative result in a medical paper that makes the DRUG look better. This made me upset, together with the question, why this slipped through peer-review – first thing i'd do, if I had to review a study comparing X vs. placebo, would be to google X vs. standard of care. 5 minutes to invest, and boom X vs. standard of care has been conduced, has been stopped early in favour of standard of care, was published (as an abstract of a world congress meeting – ASCO 2012), yet not mentioned with any word by the authors of X vs. Placebo (published halve a year after ASCO 2012). Unfortunately I realised this at the time, another scientist commented on the gray-zone ethical design of the study (X vs. placebo). So, formally, my window of 6 weeks to respond (taking the full-text paper as the limiting event) was over. Otherwise I'm sure, the letter would have been accepted (as in another argument I had experienced fair and open handling, with a critical letter accepted by the same journal).
What is the structure of Letter to editor?, and if the authors who being addressed by the letter not respond, what will be the reaction?
Hello Dr Sherif,
I can write a bit about it as I recently have had a letter to the editor accepted for publication. I came across a 'peer-reviewed' published research (in a good journal) and I sought answers to some methodological issues that needed clarification for better understanding.
The basic information below can be of some help:
# History: "Emerged in 15th century when scientists across Europe exchanged ideas and challenged each other’s thinking".
# Purpose: "Important aspect of development, discussion and exchange of ideas and to challenge or support ideas that have gone through peer review, correct mistakes, and initiate dialogue between researchers and clinicians".
# Structure: Same as scientific article, generally the world-limit is about 500-600 (1 or 2 page) and about 5 references.
Thank you Banerjee, however, do you think that editors of the published research will have their comment about your letter.
I still hope so but the authors of the original study havent replied yet - technically they should. It has been 3-4 months now.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Articles