Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I know others share my deep unease with the sponsoring of Emergency
Department advice cards by personal injury law firms. What I was
unprepared for, however, was the full page advertisement for such a
company appearing within the BMJ on both the 20th June and 4th July 2009.
This piece, thinly masquerading as a bona-fide educational article on the
effects of an industrial hydrocarbon, affords undeserved legitimacy as
well as a degree of implied endorsement to an industry whose remit is
directly at odds with those working within the NHS.
Surely the integrity and values of this journal and its readers are
more important than your advertising cash-flow?
Personal Injury law firm advertising in the BMJ
I know others share my deep unease with the sponsoring of Emergency
Department advice cards by personal injury law firms. What I was
unprepared for, however, was the full page advertisement for such a
company appearing within the BMJ on both the 20th June and 4th July 2009.
This piece, thinly masquerading as a bona-fide educational article on the
effects of an industrial hydrocarbon, affords undeserved legitimacy as
well as a degree of implied endorsement to an industry whose remit is
directly at odds with those working within the NHS.
Surely the integrity and values of this journal and its readers are
more important than your advertising cash-flow?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests