Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Write to Me Please: The Scholarly Importance of Letters to the Editor

2015; Wiley; Volume: 38; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/nur.21677

1098-240X

Margaret H. Kearney,

Delphi Technique in Research

Letters to the Editor are few and far between in US-based nursing research journals. RINAH last received one in 2013, and in the past five years we have published a total of five. In my recent search, four other general nursing research journals had slightly higher counts of two to five per year. Some were hard to find because they were not searchable or retrievable in global indexes or the journal issues' tables of contents and could be accessed only via a link on the journal homepage. Large United-Kingdom-based nursing research journals fared a bit better, with an average of a letter or two per issue. General medical journals, by contrast, had five or six per issue. In a review of major medical journals, more than half of the published randomized controlled trials were addressed in letters to the editor (Kastner, Menon, Straus, & Laupacis, 2013). When editors do not get many letters, they speculate on the reasons. Perhaps (but probably not), the peer review process is so rigorous that the work in that journal is definitive and virtually flawless; perhaps (and more likely), many researchers are simply behind in their reading (Anstey, 2014). Perhaps, instead of writing a letter, a researcher in the area plans to answer a publication with one of her own, in which she critiques and builds on the first work. Perhaps readers are too busy with other obligations. Or perhaps, in the reader's jaded view, the work lacks sufficient quality or importance to merit a comment. When you consider the value of letters to the editor, however, none of these reasons is compelling. If a field of inquiry is to progress as rapidly and effectively as possible, scholarly dialogue among researchers is essential. Because pointed, constructive, critical dialogue is increasingly rare at research conferences (a topic I will explore in future), letters are important to improve the quality of research reports by inducing clarifications, augmentations, and sometimes corrections or retractions (Anstey, 2014). If a work is fatally flawed, it should not remain in the retrievable evidence on that topic and risk misleading other researchers or clinical consumers. Letters also can bring to readers' attention the positive contributions of an article that were understated or unrealized by the original authors. I admit that this is less common than revelation of flaws, but an author may not appreciate the significance of her contribution to an unanticipated audience. Letters become part of the published evidence. When indexing works well, retrieval of an article also retrieves all the letters and author responses on that article. The reader gains a sense of how the work has been judged, beyond the journal's peer review, by invested contributors to the field. The exchange between authors and letter writers is valuable dialogue, and readers are informed by it when it is published in retrievable form. The letters and responses put the published articles in context. Sometimes the letter writer claims to have a larger and better study almost at the point of publication. Although this may come across as boastful, readers of the original article are very likely to want to read the new work as well. When an alternative study design or early result is shared in a letter (more on this below), it can create interest in the letter writer's forthcoming report. Novice researchers with important work on the brink of publication can gain name recognition in this way, putting themselves on the map in that field. To be an invested letter writer, one must be not only an active researcher but a dedicated reader of new articles in the field. A researcher making an effort to stay abreast of the latest developments in her topic area regularly reads the relevant journals or regularly searches scientific indexes using relevant keywords, and thus is well-positioned to comment promptly on the contributions and weaknesses of the published work amid the larger scope of related scientific evidence. So, the first step toward becoming an active letter writer is to read articles of interest in your narrow area of focus as soon as they come out. Top journals have a time limit for letters that may be three months or less from publication of the article. This requires a system to insure that you are aware of new work. Table of contents alerts are insufficient, both because important work may appear in an unexpected journal, and a research report may spend many months as an advance online publication before appearing in a given journal issue. Automated keyword searches may be a better option. Many university librarians are able to set up automated monthly searches for your selected keywords in the Web of Science and the like and email those reports to you. As you read the latest abstracts in your topic area, think critically about points made and methods used. Journal clubs are an excellent mechanism to discuss the relative merits of new research reports (Anstey, 2014), and doctoral student advising is another venue for regular discussion of new literature. But time pressure may lead us unconsciously to want to skim and dismiss much of what we read as replicative or flawed, maybe unconsciously reassuring ourselves that our own work is still unique or important. Try to slow down and adopt a different view. Your purpose is to fairly appraise how each relevant piece does or does not add to the big picture of the extant literature. You may find, for example, that a study's sample or design could be more rigorous, but the hypothesis or analytic approach is innovative or thought-provoking. Write when you are inspired to bring something positive or worrisome about an article to the attention of others in your field, with the goal of establishing its proper place in the literature. Letters can have multiple authors, and a collaborator or mentee may enrich the points you wish to communicate. Attend to that journal's mechanism for submission and review of letters and its criteria for publication. Time limits and length limits are common. In some journals, letters are peer-reviewed, and in most journals, the editor has a role in deciding which letters to print. At RINAH, I welcome letters on published articles, preferably within six months of the article's publication. There is no set length limit for letters, but I reserve the right, per the ICMJE guidelines (2015), to decline to publish a letter, or to edit it before publication with the letter writer's approval of proofs. Authors of the article that is the focus of the letter will be encouraged to compose a response that will appear with the letter or in the following issue. Draft your letter as a scholarly work, with citations and references, rather than as a blog post or personal correspondence. Focus closely on the published article, rather than using it as a jumping-off point for your pet peeve or favored viewpoint (Pless, 2006). Be clear and concise, make your main point early on, and defend it with evidence (Baker, 2013). Keep broad or personal criticism out of your letter (Gyles, 2013), and resist the impulse to point out your own superior expertise or achievements. Remember that the purpose of letter-writing is to strengthen the literature, not to humble an author. Unlike blinded peer review, the authors and readers will know your identity. Authors are routinely invited to publish responses to critiques. In fact, your letter is not addressed to the authors, but to the Editor, and your real audience is readers. Think of the Editor as the chair of a legislative body. Members of a senate address the chair, rather than the colleague whose position is being challenged, to discourage any emotional or ad hominem remarks. The Editor is charged with refereeing a civil exchange of ideas. Edit your own letter before submission, removing any unkind or hasty remarks. In some journals, letters can be in the form of brief research reports, in which the writer depicts study findings too preliminary or small to merit a full-length article (Peh & Ng, 2010). To insure the credibility of the findings, these types of letters are usually peer-reviewed. If you do decide to share your own research results in a letter, proceed with caution and forethought. Brief reports in letters are best suited to small, relatively simple studies that have some merit but will not otherwise appear in print. With simple, common designs and methods, readers may be able to understand your study despite minimal detail, but when the background and methods must be spelled out for reviewers and readers, it may require about the same amount of writing as a full-length manuscript. Not only will this require significant time investment, but you may be unable to publish your results formally later without self-plagiarism. A brief letter focused on the strengths and gaps of the published article and offering only general indications of the letter writer's promising method or forthcoming findings, followed soon after by a full-length article in that journal or another, may be a more appropriate route for a novice who is aiming to join the community of scholars on that topic or a senior scholar with a major project in the works. When you read an article that inspires appreciation or raises questions, consider making your reaction public. If you are well-informed enough to have an opinion, you are well-positioned to enrich the scholarly dialogue on that topic. Be an active participant in strengthening the knowledge base in your areas of expertise. I look forward to hearing from you!