Using 'Rapid Response' to promote scientific and academic debate

Many journals provide readers with the option to comment on published articles through a ‘Letter to the Editor.’ Often these comments are peer reviewed. Such comments are particularly important to raise issues and draw attention to matters of accuracy and / or scientific integrity.

Despite the peer review mechanisms journal editorial teams cannot guarantee the accuracy of all published research. In fact, it is authorship teams that are the guarantors of their published research. We experienced this recently when authors of a study published in a high impact journal ¹ were inaccurate in their discussion of two of our published works ^2,3 . We used the ‘Rapid Response’ option available in journals published by the British Medical Journal publishing group to draw attention to inaccuracies in an article that cited our research⁴. We 1) highlighted errors in reporting, 2) provided the correct information suit, and 3) invited the authors to comment on issues arising from the corrected information. In such circumstances it is important to attend to the tone of our Rapid Response to ensure mutual respect, especially as critique forms the cornerstone of knowledge generation and we will be the recipients of such critique ourselves ⁵.

It is often said that the number of errors encountered in a published article is inversely related to the diligence of the authors correcting and checking draft manuscripts ⁶. Thus, during manuscript preparation we spend much time to attending to the precision and accuracy of the text through a process of teamwork, mentorship, and internal peer review. Yet, despite such diligence errors may still occur in a final published article. We feel temperance and in particular humility, are essential behavioural qualities that we should all seek when publishing and critiquing research. ⁴

1.          Horan D, Büttner F, Blake C, Hägglund M, Kelly S, Delahunt E. Injury incidence rates in women’s football: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective injury surveillance studies. Br J Sports Med. Published online October 13, 2022:bjsports-2021-105177. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-105177

2.          Mayhew L, Johnson MI, Francis P, Lutter C, Alali A, Jones G. Incidence of injury in adult elite women’s football: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2021;7(3):e001094. doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2021-001094

3.          Mayhew L, Johnson MI, Jones G. Comment on: “Injury Profile in Women’s Football: A Systematic Review and Meta‑analysis.” Sport Med. 2021;51(12):2665-2666. doi:10.1007/s40279-021-01531-9

4.          Mayhew, Lawrence; Johnson, Mark I; Jones G. Comment on: “Injury incidence rates in women’s football: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective injury surveillance studies.". Br J Sports Med. Published online 2023:11th January. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2022/10/13/bjsports-2021-105177

5.          O’Connor R, Gartner C, Henriksen L, et al. Blog fog? Using rapid response to advance science and promote debate. Tob Control. 2017;26(2):121 LP - 121. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053632

6.          Ghai B, Saxena AK, Makkar JK. A guide to reducing citation errors in bibliographies. Emerg Med J. 2007;24(3):232-233. doi:10.1136/emj.2006.044206