Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Addressing conflicts of interest and clouding of objectivity: BJSM’s “Peer review: fair review” section
  1. Karim M Khan1,
  2. Steven D Stovitz2,
  3. Babette Pluim3,
  4. Jill L Cook4,
  5. Roald Bahr5,
  6. Elizabeth A Arendt6,
  7. Timothy D Noakes7
  1. 1
    Centre for Hip Health and Musculoskeletal Research and Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
  2. 2
    Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  3. 3
    Royal Netherlands Lawn Tennis Association (KNLTB), Amersfoort, The Netherlands
  4. 4
    School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia
  5. 5
    Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center, Department of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway
  6. 6
    Department of Orthopaedics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  7. 7
    MRC/UCT Research Unit for Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, Sports Science Institute of South Africa, Newlands, South Africa

    Statistics from

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    You know that feeling. You have spent months raising the funds for your research study, writing the protocol and having it approved by your ethics committee. Then you spent a year or more completing the research and writing up your results. Then finally you press “send” and your sacred manuscript is winging its way across cyberspace to the journal of your choice. Your feeling of relief is immense and for a short time you turn your mind to other pursuits.

    Then with what appears to be quite rude alacrity, you receive the email from the journal. Your heart sinks as you assimilate the rejection. The editor informs you that your manuscript has been reviewed by two or more of the world’s most eminent authorities on the topic. Unfortunately none sees value in your study which is “too speculative” and does not fit with what “is already known about the topic”. Then to add further insult, the editor states that your study is in any case of too low an impact to be of any interest …

    View Full Text