A reply from the Editor - Neuro

[Wobbly]

this is the reply I received from the Editor of the Article from The Neurologist...I did not use any names or group names when I sent in my email to them regarding this article.  I wanted to let them know my concerns..


My name is Karl Durst and I am the publisher for The Neurologist. Your e-mail was forwarded to me from our customer service department.


I’m sorry that you and your group do not agree with the article authored by Dr. Rolak and Dr. Fleming, entitled “The Differential Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis,” from our March 2007 issue. However, the article in question is directed to a medical audience, not a lay audience. I can assure you that the article was reviewed by a senior MS expert and was recommended for publication. Once an article is published it cannot be revised. If you or your colleagues wish to write a letter to the Editor expressing your thoughts, the Editor will consider the publication merits of the letter.

[essdipity]

Actually, most of this stuff was from Laugh In.

And remember Geraldine, and the Church of What's Happenin' Now? With the Reverend LeRoy.

ess

[LATW]

I don't know what we are talking about here but I showed my girls a clip of Tiny Tim on Youtube and they thought he was the most bazzare thing they had ever seen.

I am sure I am way off of the subject here but the Smothers Brothers, which I used to love along with Red Skelton, reminded me.

LA

[Quixotic1]

Thanks, I'll take you up on that!  

I also miss the Smothers Brothers.....

Quix

[Want to feel well!!!]

Don't forget the Fickle Finger of Fate Award...we've got to hand out one of those...

Wanna

[Wobbly]

boy....now that is confusing...hehehe

andie

[biowham]

First of all, as somebody who participates regularly in the peer-review process, I can tell you that (a) sometimes, it's just BS and reviewers are not very focused and will either submit fairly irrelevant critiques or critiques that are too general, and (b) when it comes to reviews of the literature (which this was), the criteria that peer reviewers apply are VERY loose.

Second, yes, it is arrogance to distinguish "us" from the "target" audience, as though people who are not neurologists cannot understand what the paper says. Its language frankly is not that esoteric. I realize I have a lot of training, but I still think it was a pretty accessible paper, even to people without a lot of training. Now, if it had been a paleogeomorphology paper--that would be a whole 'nother ballgame.

Third, yes, Quix should totally write that response up. Quix, I edit papers for submission to medical journals for a living. Let me know if you'd like me to do that service for you, pro bono. I'd be happy to.

Bio