Hardly traceable pitfalls in medical review articles

Changing roles of the corresponding author - Consequences for the accessibility of medical information

It appears that ever more frequently the corresponding author of a multi-author manuscript is not what he/she was originally supposed to be: the most involved researcher with the best overview concerning the presented study. Numerous journals now use the term 'corresponding author', however, for the author who acts as a kind of secretary for the submitted manuscript, irrespective of his/her expertize in the subject. Another problem is that a significant number of universities give more scientific credits to the corresponding author than to his/her co-authors, which fairly commonly results in granting the corresponding authorship to the student or young scientist who needs scientific credits most urgently for his/her academic career. Consequently, readers of a multi-author article are nowadays hardly able to judge which author of an interesting article might best be contacted for additional information. An increasing number of journals seem unaware of the problems that this changing role of the corresponding author may cause. The present contribution both mentions the main resulting problems and proposes possible solutions.

Rest is essential for effective therapies, and so it is for preparing a manuscript

Numerous medical articles are commented upon. This suggests that their scientific quality is insufficient. This need not be the case, however: most comments regard the presentation of the data, the conclusions or lacking information in the discussion. Such flaws can commonly be attributed to either too much haste in writing the manuscript, or insufficient time between finishing the manuscript and submission; this last problem seems the most common cause, as it deprives the author from reading his own text critically and with an open mind. The solution for this problem is simple: after having finished a manuscript, it should be laid aside for at least a week, after which the author should read it with the eyes of a reader, not the eyes of an author. Critical, open-minded reading after rest helps increase the quality of the resulting manuscript, just like rest helps a patient during most therapies.