Skip to content
naulon
Not checkedNot checked for notices yet.

Fundamental limits to the precision of early warning systems for epidemics of infectious diseases.

John M Drake

PLoS Medicine · 2005

doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020144 (opens in a new tab)

We email you when a new notice or a question about this paper appears.

Abstract

I previously criticised the effective "statute of limitations" in several leading general medical journals "whereby authors of papers are immune to disclosure of methodological weaknesses once some arbitrary (short) period has elapsed" [2].Such a time limit discourages post-publication peer review, with potential correspondents deterred by the short and unambiguous deadline.I suggested that journals with such a policy should reconsider.The word limit on that article precluded additional adverse comments on journals' word limits for letters, although they were presented in Table 2 of that article [2].Subsequently, three of the six journals did revise their instructions [3-5], but each imposed tougher restrictions on letters, reducing either the maximum time limit, the maximum length, or both.The strictest current requirements are a two-week limit by The Lancet and a 175-word limit by the New England Journal of Medicine.Editors are seemingly falling over themselves to speed up and shorten letters, but this behaviour is inappropriate for a scientifi c journal.The key characteristic of science is not its infallibility, a quality it clearly does not and cannot have, but its self-correcting ability.The decision by medical editors to stifl e debate is misguided [2,6].A time limit, especially a very short one, signals that speed is more important than content, that convenience takes precedence over science.While it is reasonable to encourage early comments, there should be no time limit on comments aimed at clarifying or criticising study methodology.Likewise, it will often be impossible to explain the subtleties of methodological problems in 400 words, and impossible in only 175.Additional restrictions on the number of authors and references are also questionable.I am disappointed that PLoS Medicine has imposed a time limit of four weeks on correspondence.As explained above, I believe that such a limit is mistaken.

Abstract licence: CC BY

References3

  1. 3.

2 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.