Abstract
This issue of the Annals contains letters about one recently published technical note and one tip, whose writers point out that they had published the same techniques some time ago. The Technical Section was established ten years ago to fill something of a void in ‘general’ surgical journals, by providing a forum for publication of new and/or useful points of surgical technique. From the outset I knew that many submissions would not be truly original. I ask specialist reviewers: ‘Is it novel, reasonable and/or sufficiently interesting to merit publication?’ If they advise that a technique is one they have seen but that it is useful and seems not to be widely known, then I request that the authors add a few words to point out that the technique is not original. If reviewers state that a technique has been reported in another journal, then it is not accepted: but the Annals does depend on its reviewers for that knowledge and they may well not be aware of ‘small’ publications among the plethora of journals that now exist. It certainly is disappointing to find that authors have not done a thorough literature search: there is little excuse for that nowadays. The Readers’ Pages allow rapid publication of letters if that needs to be pointed out. They also allow authors to respond if they believe that their technique has subtle differences and the Annals encourages such exchanges. I see one aspect of the Technical Section as being a place for trainees to gain their early experience of publishing. If they fail to do a proper literature search and are exposed publicly for that, then it is a deservedly painful step in their learning. Their senior co-authors must also be acutely aware of their own responsibilities for checking final manuscripts and the processes used in their preparation. My own unease in witnessing these exchanges is ameliorated just a little by the fact that it shows that surgeons are reading the Technical Section and noticing when notes and tips are not original. A novel laparoscopic approach for the surgical management of buried bumper syndrome
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.