Download PDFPDF
Are Editors free from bias? The special case of Letters to the Editor
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Good data and constructive debate can help resolve controversial issues

    Barry Pless claimed that critics of helmet laws rely on fatality data. Yet my review considered all injuries serious enough to require hospital admission in all jurisdictions where helmet wearing increased substantially (more than 40 percentage points). There were no obvious responses in percent head injury.[1]

    In contrast, the large, ob...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Evidence on cycle helmets is contested, ambiguous and inconclusive.

    The Editor of IP does not like the fact that a debate exists about cycle helmets. (1) He would like not to publish correspondence from helmet sceptics. He describes the letters he has received as frustrating and irritating “repeated almost boilerplate arguments”. It is welcome and honest of the Editor to state his willingness to publish helmet sceptic eletters despite his dislike for this view. It compares with the a...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.