Letter to the Editor

O’Connor, Paul

doi:10.1111/j.1440-1681.2004.04046.x

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Letters written in response to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) frequently raise important questions regarding the methodology employed, especially relating to the population, intervention, and analysis [10]. Issues raised in a Letter may ultimately lead to the retraction of the original article [11][12], and occasionally a Letter is used to announce the voluntary retraction of a paper [13]. Some have argued that authors of Letters "have more credibility than … prepublication peer-reviewers because the former opinions are published and signed" [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Letters to the editor on the Zika virus: a bibliometric analysis

Delwiche

2021

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To conduct a bibliometric analysis of Letters to the Editor published on the Zika virus from 1952–2018.Methods: A PubMed search was conducted using the terms (Zika OR ZIKV). Results were limited to 1952–2018 and Publication Type = Letter. Results were exported to EndNote, and the full text of each Letter examined. Each Letter was assigned to one of five categories: Reader Response, Author Reply, Observation, Case Report, or Research. Additional study parameters included number of authors, number of references, use of graphics, and funding. Citation reports were generated for each category and the entire dataset, producing lists sorted by Times Cited.Results: Of 499 Letters, only 15 (3.0%) were published before 2016. In 2016, at the height of the Zika virus epidemic in the Americas, 244 (48.9%) Letters were published, dropping to 145 (29.1%) in 2017 and 95 (19.0%) in 2018. Letters included 149 (29.9%) Reader Responses, 56 (11.2%) Author Replies, 112 (22.4%) Observations, 70 (14.0%) Case Reports, and 112 (22.4%) Research. The Letters were written by 1–35 authors; 369 (74.0%) Letters had 1–5 authors, and 130 (26.0%) had 6 or more. The Letters cited 0–63 references, with an average of 7.0 per Letter. Graphics appeared in 192 (38.5%) Letters, and 77 (15.4%) Letters reported funding. An interesting anomaly was the 104 (20.8%) Letters authored or co-authored by 1 individual.Conclusion: Letters to the Editor remain an important component of scientific communication and may serve as a valuable source of clinical and research information.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Letters to the editor on the Zika virus: a bibliometric analysis

Delwiche

2021

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The role of correspondence sections in post-publication peer review: A bibliometric study of general and internal medicine journals

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific journals claim that correspondence sections are for post-publication peer review. We compared the conditions for submission and the bibliometrics of letters-to-editors published in leading medical journals in 2002 and 2007 using journal-derived information and data from PubMed and Journal Citation Reports. The median time limit for letter submissions decreased from 6 to 3.5 weeks, the median word limit from 400 to 350. The median number of letters per published article was near one in both years. Only about half of the letters were followed by an author reply in either year. Electronic response systems were available for four journals in 2007.

show abstract

Letter to the Editor

Cited by 2 publications

References 3 publications

Letters to the editor on the Zika virus: a bibliometric analysis

Letters to the editor on the Zika virus: a bibliometric analysis

The role of correspondence sections in post-publication peer review: A bibliometric study of general and internal medicine journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About