An audit of the BMJ's correspondence columns

Area of Science:

• Medical Journal Publishing
• Scientific Communication
• Scholarly Debate

Background:

• The British Medical Journal (BMJ) receives numerous letters to the editor.
• Understanding the dynamics of submitted and published correspondence is crucial for journal editors.
• Analyzing reader engagement across different journal sections can inform editorial strategy.

Purpose of the Study:

• To determine which sections of the BMJ attract the most reader comments (letters).
• To investigate if rejection rates for letters vary based on the BMJ section they respond to.
• To assess whether the published correspondence reflects the agreement/disagreement balance of submitted letters.

Main Methods:

• A retrospective audit of letters submitted to the BMJ between January 1 and May 21, 1989.
• Analysis of 1319 submitted letters, including 974 responding to published articles and 345 on new topics.
• Categorization of letters by BMJ section (editorials, news, papers, middles) and agreement/disagreement with the source article.

Main Results:

• The overall letter rejection rate was 63%. Letters responding to articles had a 56% rejection rate.
• Editorials and 'middles' sections attracted proportionally more letters than research papers.
• Letters on papers had lower rejection rates (43%) compared to editorials (57%) and middles (66%).
• More submitted letters disagreed than agreed across all sections, particularly for editorials and middles.
• Published correspondence showed a balanced representation of agreeing and disagreeing letters, regardless of the section.

Conclusions:

• Journal sections designed to encourage discussion effectively attract reader engagement.
• The priority given to letters responding to research papers highlights their significance.
• The BMJ's correspondence section serves as a balanced forum for debate, irrespective of initial submission imbalances.