Chams, H.

Falavarjani, K.G.

Kashkouli, M.B.

PubMed

eprints Iran University of Medical Sciences

HOSTED BY Available online at www.sciencedirect.comScienceDirectJournal of Current Ophthalmology 28 (2016) 1e2http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-current-ophthalmologyEditorialPeehttp://d2452-2licenseLetter to Editor, a scientific forum for discussionAlmost all the medical journals have included a specialsection for “Letter to the Editor” or “Correspondence” in orderto raise the level of discussion on their publications. Histor-ically, articles published in this section have consisted ofseveral categories depending on the journal policy:Letters criticizing published papersLetters written in agreement of the published papersLetters criticizing or describing a hypothesis or a medicalproblem (not necessarily published)Letters describing additional features of a published article(by the same authors)Case reports and small series1In recent years, many journals moved toward denoting the“Letters to the Editors” as the letters discussing a specificpaper. Its importance has previously been discussed andemphasized in the literature.2e4In scientific journals, all types of articles should typicallybe subject to a rigorous peer review. The aim of peer review isto expose the errors in the manuscript; however, this processhas its own limitations. Two or three reviewers are usuallyrequired to comment on an original article, but it is oftendifficult to find experts on both the subject of manuscript andscientific writing. Moreover, an expert methodological reviewof a manuscript is usually difficult to obtain.3 Also, thesereviewers are usually busy with their clinical practice, theirmanuscripts, and the reviews from other journals and may nothave enough time to complete a review on its time frame.Although the role of peer review to present the scientificallyvalid information is not negotiable, the process may not becomplete.“Letter to the Editor” or “Correspondence” is considered a“post publication peer review”. It is a powerful forum ofdiscussion between the researchers to show the errors anddeficits of the study which were overlooked in the pre-publication peer review process. It is estimated that less thanone tenth of the scientific articles feed with a criticizing letterto the editor.4 Ideally, this rate should increase to at least oneletter for each research article.The letter should be submitted within a few weeks tomonths after a publication. Long delays between paperr review under responsibility of the Iranian Society of Ophthalmology.x.doi.org/10.1016/j.joco.2016.01.006325/Copyright © 2016, Iranian Society of Ophthalmology. Production and ho(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).publication and a critical letter may decrease the interest of theeditors and readers to the subject. An exception is when aletter describes a major flaw in the published material. Lettersmust be clear and concise and avoid unnecessary discussionsand descriptions. They must not duplicate other published orsubmitted materials or include unpublished data. They aregenerally listed in the scientific databases as a publication.Therefore, the evidence against or in favor of the discussedsubject should be strong enough to attract the journal editorsand readers. Letters do not generally undergo a typical peerreview, and consequently, they should not be used to introducenew materials. Those that agree with the authors or repeat thestudy limitations that have already been noted in the publishedarticle, and do not present new evidence are not acceptable orhave low priority.5 The authors of the letters should avoidpersonal attacks, colloquial words, and impolite language.Commonly, the format of letters includes an introductorysentence, a body, and a concluding sentence. The authorsshould follow the author's guide of each journal on the prep-aration style, especially the limit of the word count.Although the scientific content of a research article is dis-cussed and criticized in future original research and reviewarticles, letters enhance the scientific level of a publication.The letter to the editor is a proper place for trainees who needto get more involved in the field of scientific publication topublish their suitable criticism.2 With the expansion of theInternet and development of social media in recent years,everyone can easily become involved in the discussion aboutan article. Although this is a unique opportunity to attractreaders and draw out different ideas, the scientific pathways toconvert the ideas to scientific evidence remain to bedetermined.The Journal of Current Ophthalmology, like other peer-reviewed ophthalmology journals, values such a publicationvery much and urges all readers to submit their respected andesteemed comments to be considered for publication.References1. Peh WC, Ng KH. Writing a Letter to the Editor. Singapore Med J.2010;51:532e535.2. Tierney E, O'Rourke C, Fenton JE. What is the role of “the Letter to theEditor”? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272:2089e2093.sting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND2 Editorial / Journal of Current Ophthalmology 28 (2016) 1e23. Liesegang TJ. Peer review should continue after publication. Am J Oph-thalmol. 2010;149:359e360.4. Baethge C, Seger G. Our readers' voice: Letters to the Editor are animportant component of the discussion of scientific articles, in Deutsches€Arzteblatt as in Other Journals. Our correspondence pages reflect a diver-sity of opinion thanks to the love of debate among our readersdand thanksto a few rules. Deutsches Arzteblatt Int. 2009;106:207e209.5. Golub RM. Correspondence course: tips for getting a letter published inJAMA. JAMA. 2008;300:98e99.Khalil Ghasemi Falavarjani, MD*Eye Research Center, Rassoul Akram Hospital, Iran Universityof Medical Sciences, Tehran, IranMohsen Bahmani Kashkouli, MDEye Research Center, Rassoul Akram Hospital, Iran Universityof Medical Sciences, Tehran, IranHormoz Chams, MDEye Department, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University ofMedical Sciences, Tehran, Iran*Corresponding author.E-mail address: drghasemi@yahoo.com (K.G. Falavarjani).26 January 2016

Letter to Editor, a scientific forum for discussion

Falavarjani, Khalil Ghasemi

Kashkouli, Mohsen Bahmani

Chams, Hormoz

Elsevier - Publisher Connector 

HOSTED BY Available online at www.sciencedirect.comScienceDirect
Journal of Current Ophthalmology 28 (2016) 1e2
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-current-ophthalmologyEditorialPee
http://d
2452-2
licenseLetter to Editor, a scientific forum for discussionAlmost all the medical journals have included a special
section for “Letter to the Editor” or “Correspondence” in order
to raise the level of discussion on their publications. Histor-
ically, articles published in this section have consisted of
several categories depending on the journal policy:
Letters criticizing published papers
Letters written in agreement of the published papers
Letters criticizing or describing a hypothesis or a medical
problem (not necessarily published)
Letters describing additional features of a published article
(by the same authors)
Case reports and small series1
In recent years, many journals moved toward denoting the
“Letters to the Editors” as the letters discussing a specific
paper. Its importance has previously been discussed and
emphasized in the literature.2e4
In scientific journals, all types of articles should typically
be subject to a rigorous peer review. The aim of peer review is
to expose the errors in the manuscript; however, this process
has its own limitations. Two or three reviewers are usually
required to comment on an original article, but it is often
difficult to find experts on both the subject of manuscript and
scientific writing. Moreover, an expert methodological review
of a manuscript is usually difficult to obtain.3 Also, these
reviewers are usually busy with their clinical practice, their
manuscripts, and the reviews from other journals and may not
have enough time to complete a review on its time frame.
Although the role of peer review to present the scientifically
valid information is not negotiable, the process may not be
complete.
“Letter to the Editor” or “Correspondence” is considered a
“post publication peer review”. It is a powerful forum of
discussion between the researchers to show the errors and
deficits of the study which were overlooked in the pre-
publication peer review process. It is estimated that less than
one tenth of the scientific articles feed with a criticizing letter
to the editor.4 Ideally, this rate should increase to at least one
letter for each research article.
The letter should be submitted within a few weeks to
months after a publication. Long delays between paperr review under responsibility of the Iranian Society of Ophthalmology.
x.doi.org/10.1016/j.joco.2016.01.006
325/Copyright © 2016, Iranian Society of Ophthalmology. Production and ho
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).publication and a critical letter may decrease the interest of the
editors and readers to the subject. An exception is when a
letter describes a major flaw in the published material. Letters
must be clear and concise and avoid unnecessary discussions
and descriptions. They must not duplicate other published or
submitted materials or include unpublished data. They are
generally listed in the scientific databases as a publication.
Therefore, the evidence against or in favor of the discussed
subject should be strong enough to attract the journal editors
and readers. Letters do not generally undergo a typical peer
review, and consequently, they should not be used to introduce
new materials. Those that agree with the authors or repeat the
study limitations that have already been noted in the published
article, and do not present new evidence are not acceptable or
have low priority.5 The authors of the letters should avoid
personal attacks, colloquial words, and impolite language.
Commonly, the format of letters includes an introductory
sentence, a body, and a concluding sentence. The authors
should follow the author's guide of each journal on the prep-
aration style, especially the limit of the word count.
Although the scientific content of a research article is dis-
cussed and criticized in future original research and review
articles, letters enhance the scientific level of a publication.
The letter to the editor is a proper place for trainees who need
to get more involved in the field of scientific publication to
publish their suitable criticism.2 With the expansion of the
Internet and development of social media in recent years,
everyone can easily become involved in the discussion about
an article. Although this is a unique opportunity to attract
readers and draw out different ideas, the scientific pathways to
convert the ideas to scientific evidence remain to be
determined.
The Journal of Current Ophthalmology, like other peer-
reviewed ophthalmology journals, values such a publication
very much and urges all readers to submit their respected and
esteemed comments to be considered for publication.References
1. Peh WC, Ng KH. Writing a Letter to the Editor. Singapore Med J.
2010;51:532e535.
2. Tierney E, O'Rourke C, Fenton JE. What is the role of “the Letter to the
Editor”? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272:2089e2093.sting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
2 Editorial / Journal of Current Ophthalmology 28 (2016) 1e23. Liesegang TJ. Peer review should continue after publication. Am J Oph-
thalmol. 2010;149:359e360.
4. Baethge C, Seger G. Our readers' voice: Letters to the Editor are an
important component of the discussion of scientific articles, in Deutsches
€Arzteblatt as in Other Journals. Our correspondence pages reflect a diver-
sity of opinion thanks to the love of debate among our readersdand thanks
to a few rules. Deutsches Arzteblatt Int. 2009;106:207e209.
5. Golub RM. Correspondence course: tips for getting a letter published in
JAMA. JAMA. 2008;300:98e99.
Khalil Ghasemi Falavarjani, MD*
Eye Research Center, Rassoul Akram Hospital, Iran University
of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IranMohsen Bahmani Kashkouli, MD
Eye Research Center, Rassoul Akram Hospital, Iran University
of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Hormoz Chams, MD
Eye Department, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of
Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
*Corresponding author.
E-mail address: drghasemi@yahoo.com (K.G. Falavarjani).
26 January 2016


Letter to Editor, a scientific forum for discussion 

http://eprints.iums.ac.ir/3858/1/Letter-to-Editor-a-scientific-forum-for-discussion2016Journal-of-Current-OphthalmologyOpen-Access.pdf

Letter to Editor, a scientific forum for discussion

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eprints Iran University of Medical Sciences

Elsevier - Publisher Connector

Elsevier - Publisher Connector