Abstract
The Rake's progress
On 1 February, 2018, the Scottish Medical Journal went proper electronic. Submissions should no longer be sent to
Time will tell the precise effect this has on the interface between author and editorial. Currently, I endeavour to acknowledge submissions quickly (83% within three days) after reading them, enclosing my initial view of the paper with either an immediate decision ‘not to pursue’ or an outlined plan for general or expert assessment and a hint of the likely outcome. This ‘acknowledgement’ will now be automatic, but hopefully I can follow up quickly with my first thoughts.
After that, things are likely to be speeded up by the new process, as reviewers and authors have ‘deadlines’ – or ‘targets’ at least – to keep to. And it will be interesting to see how that pans out, particularly with the expert reviewers who give of their time and expertise for no specific recompense. Hopefully, they will not feel this adds in any way to the pressure.
It is clear that the process – and myself – had to be dragged into the 21st manuscriptcentral century at some point. SAGE, the publishers, with more than 1000 journals in their portfolio, could not continue with many such anachronistic outliers. The change should enhance the tracking of papers throughout the process, and hopefully I will soon be looking back on my flicking between an Excel Spreadsheet of all-submissions-and-actions-taken and the Yahoo inboxes and outboxes as a juggling act I am happy to do without.
Just also hope it doesn't lose the personal touch.
And any interim questions on papers and the like can still reach me at
Brexit revisited
The SMJ email address is being increasingly assailed by Press Releases from various organisations fearful as to the effect of Brexit on the nation's health and healthcare.
On 29 January 2018, the Brexit Health Alliance signalled warnings on the availability of Europe-produced medicines in the UK and vice versa. Very even-handedly, they quoted the predicted problems of a particular UK-produced drug for prostate cancer finding its way to European patients (which rather reminded me of my own approach to the ‘Scot-Free’ referendum: ‘But what about poor England if we leave?’). They also voiced concerns re future drug research, citing 750 UK-led clinical trials as currently involving multiple EU member states.
Worries with regard to research collaboration were echoed two days later by the Mental Health Network, although their main focus was on manpower and recruitment. Approximately 20% of psychiatry consultants in East England are EU nationals, a resource they could ill do without.
Nearer to home, BMA Scotland took up both cudgels in its report to the Health & Sports Committee. ‘The BMA have been clear that Brexit poses a series of substantial risks to healthcare’, said the chair, Dr Peter Bennie. As well as voicing concerns re manpower ((we must) ‘get the message out there that EEA-trained doctors will be welcomed in Scotland’) and access to EU research, they suggested that hastily-concocted trade deals might increase ‘privatisation’ of the NHS, or give ‘investors’ an enhanced ability to oppose public health measures not to their liking.
It's all a bit worrying.
I was struck by a phrase in a national newspaper last weekend – that one Government minister's planned approach to Brexit was to wake up one morning and find it was all a bad dream.
That would save all the hassle of a second referendum. Which would, of course, be unthinkable as ‘the country has spoken’. And the right of the country to have its say is so important that it should never be allowed to speak twice. Certainly not with more information available. Hindsight is a great thing, but let's not make use of it. Like University Challenge. ‘Sorry, I have to take your first answer’. Plus a five-point penalty for the interruption, before Jeremy had finished the full question.
I have often reflected upon the sadness of people who disappear from home…and their car is found abandoned three to four days later, beside the sea, or a lake. And I wonder if they have simply gone away, finding it all a bit too much, needing a break – with no particular thoughts of ending it all. But, after a couple of days, with the brouhaha of a world reaching out to them, it would simply be too embarrassing to return home…
And I wondered if a Government, a country, is allowed to think like that.
SMJ 63/1
In view of the above, it is hopefully a coincidence that this quarter's issue of the SMJ seems more UK-orientated than some others. The Scottish national cardiac transplant programme presents its experience of the recognised association between anti-rejection therapy and ‘induced’ malignancies. Many of us remember the international front-page wonder of the first successful completion of this now ‘routine’ operation, and the report, as well as demonstrating a likely improvement from changing drug regimens, includes figures on performance and outcome to update our awareness of the results of this procedure.
Colorectal surgery might be considered the other end of the spectrum. Rehabilitation takes the place of immunosuppression, and the effect of cognitive impairment, in an increasingly elderly population, on this aspect is assessed by our colleagues in Cardiff. Back in Scotland, surgeons and physicians alike will remember lectures being slightly less tedious when you got to answer questions with your little electronic boxes. They seem little changed, though now termed Audience Response Systems, but do they actually help us remember stuff?
Meantime, two separate case reports highlight the difficulties of diagnosing muscle problems (publication bias in an editor with a rheumatological bent?), while the ‘what lies beneath?’ Question is correctly posed by a medical team faced with an extensive, but non-specific, foot lesion. And as I round off this editorial and head for my morning coffee, the last report suggests I ensure I get there in good time.
Note
When I began editing the journal in 2016, we had three issues-worth of ‘banked’ accepted articles, taking some pressure off any editorial board's ever-present worries re available copy. Now, despite increasing numbers of submissions, our bank of accepted papers is borderline sufficient to cover the next single (May) issue. If, paradoxically, you like the sound of these figures, perhaps see them as a challenge, send along your submission – be it original research, case report, educational, historical or just plain controversial rant – to: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/scotmj
And don't worry too much about the robots.