Abstract

Professor Peter Bacchetti’s excellent article [1], highlighting the other problem of peer review of finding flaws that are not really there based on unfounded statistical criticism, and its de-moralizing effect on authors. I wish to add some thoughts to the debated issues. Professor David Horrobin’s original classics on the subject [2,3] have not yet been surpassed. It was updated recently [4] and prompted some contributory thoughts [5]. Having enough experience as author of reject articles and some as peer reviewer, I find the most devastating effect to author’s morale is making no comment, giving no reason for rejection or not replying all. The BMJ is guilty on this account as an article of mine was rejected that was accepted elsewhere after minor editing [6]. The BMJ, however, is in the good company of most biomedical journals who apply the cope rules.