This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor.—
As an occasional reviewer for medical journals, I read your editorial, "The Open Editorial Office," in the March issue of the Archives (138:361, 1978) with some interest and am moved to comment.I see little point in a dialogue between the author of a rejected manuscript and the editor or reviewers who have rejected it, unless the manuscript would be acceptable with changes. Since the author's belief that a manuscript is acceptable for publication is as self-evident by its submission as the reviewer's opinion to the contrary by its rejection, it seems to me that further dialogue is an exercise in futility, particularly since the author has already received the benefit of the reasons for the reviewer's rejection.I once had the experience of having a manuscript rejected by two reviewers, one of whom rejected it because my conclusions were not warranted by the data; thus, I
Dworetzky M. The Open Editorial Office. Arch Intern Med. 1978;138(8):1303. doi:10.1001/archinte.1978.03630330097034