Volume 100: Editorials: What's in a name?
There are a variety of styles of articles labelled ‘editorial’ in today's medical and scientific journals, ranging from what would be better termed ‘commentaries’, articles based around key papers published in that particular journal's current issue, to true editorials, which are typically short articles, expressing an opinion or point of view.A quick look at definitions of editorials on the internet comes up with the following: ‘A carefully organized piece of writing in which an opinion is expressed’ and ‘Personal opinion on a subject’. Of course, the name ‘editorial’ is synthesized from the fact that editorials always used to be written by editors.
The key attribute, and what makes editorials so interesting to read, in my view, is the personal opinion aspect. To qualify as an editorial, this present article will comply with the premise of expressing my personal opinion. Other key requisites are that although an editorial is personal opinion, it should never be written in the first person; its aim is to re-educate readers, to try to change their minds, to be controversial, challenging; to write the things others perhaps think, but dare not say.
There are vital stages to an editorial, like any other journal article. The first part of the structure is the chosen topic. This may be something of personal importance to the writer, or of more widely applicable interest. Many writers of so-called editorials, however, have the topic thrust upon them at the request of a journal editor, which in many ways defeats the object. How can the writer be passionate and opinionated on a topic not chosen by him or her?
The second stage is the analysis and interpretation of the available evidence to support the writer's opinion. Note that an editorial is often biased, and the data analysis will not necessarily be a true reflection of all viewpoints. This is what makes editorials so fascinating to read. The third stage of the editorial article is the conclusion. This is the crux of the article, the author's personal viewpoint, brought to the reader in a series of logical steps. A really good editorial will convince the reader that this is the only opinion to have, given the circumstances of the evidence presented to them. Finally, the editorial should never be anonymous, it should be a ‘signed expression of opinion’ and authors must stand by their views.
The British Journal of Anaesthesia today publishes articles labelled ‘editorial’ in every issue. However, many of these really do not qualify as such, according to the criteria above, and must be more properly called ‘commentaries’. Although interesting and helpful in the interpretation and understanding of articles in the journal, they are, nevertheless, not editorials. The Lancet publishes a few very short editorials every week, usually on topical medical matters appearing in the media. They are never identified to a particular member of the editorial team and are simply attributed to ‘The Lancet’. In contrast, their ‘comment’ articles, however, are based entirely on articles in that week's issue and are attributed to individual authors.
It is interesting to have a look back at editorial articles in the early volumes of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. Although the first issue in 1923 does not have an editorial identified as such, it does have a ‘foreword’ by the editor which is in essence an article in the style of today's editorials. It is very clearly the viewpoint of the writer on what he thinks the content and purpose of the British Journal of Anaesthesia should be. In extremely dated and complex language, he also takes the opportunity to remind the readership of the need to unite: ‘If there is strength in unity then there is futility in the reverse’. It is an interesting exercise to reflect on how far we have travelled on that path to unity in the succeeding 84 years.
The first article actually labelled as an editorial in the fledgling journal followed for the most part, the basic definition of editorials given above. This first editorial was actually a series of articles by different authors, loosely combined under the euphemistic title ‘Some remarks on post-operative lung trouble’.1 In essence, these were certainly personal opinion, made up of a series of anecdotal accounts on the authors' experiences, some of which are written in the first person. My own favourite comment called for ‘singular tact in dealing with friction points between surgeon and anaesthetist’.
Subsequent editorials published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia in the 1930s offered descriptions of individual anaesthetists' personal practices interspersed with those written by the editor himself, amusingly politically incorrect by today's standards but clearly fulfilling the criteria of controversial personal viewpoint. By 1950, the journal was back to four volumes a year after the lean war years, but the editorials were lacklustre, some even made up of results of the Diploma exams and vacancy advertisements!2
More recent articles labelled as editorials in the British Journal of Anaesthesia, although vastly improved in terms of plain English and political correctness, are in fact commentaries, with authors invited to provide an accessory article to accompany an original article in the same issue of the journal. This is a shame; as scientists and clinicians we have a commitment to evidence-based practice and as such, little opportunity to give vent to a no-holds barred (within the scope of decency and reason, of course) outpouring about something we as individuals feel passionate about. One editorial which truly deserves its label was published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia in 2005. ‘What use is pain’ by Tim Nash is a fascinating journey through Plato to Pavloff about the author's view on whether there is a protective effect of pain.3 Despite careful searching, only a few other articles in the British Journal of Anaesthesia can genuinely call themselves editorials. Last year, Drs Drummond and Dozier4 presented a very readable article on the risks of ‘Googling’, but one editorial during the SARS epidemic reverted back to the early years of the British Journal of Anaesthesia and offered best practice advice, which although certainly topical and informative, was neither commentary nor editorial.5 The article on randomized controlled trials in anaesthesia which appeared in the British Journal of Anaesthesia in 19996 ticks the box for re-educating and scores points for readability by the clever use of rhetorical questions. Another editorial using the same technique certainly had a catchy title ‘The only man to have all his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe’ but the relevance of such a title to the actual article eludes me even after reading it.7
Editors-in-Chiefs themselves, of course, have published editorials: Professor Jennie Hunter8 introduced us to electronic submission in her editorial in 2003, and also used the opportunity to gripe about sloppy presentation, a well-known bugbear of hers, matched only by my own abhorrence of misplaced apostrophes. However, the then Editor-in-Chief was hounded by her use of Jones' as a plural of Joneses by a (self-labelled) Welshman.9 Unfortunately, Dr Harrop-Griffiths was entirely correct. On a more serious note, Professor Hunter provided an excellent introduction to the remit of the Committee on Publication Ethics, which, although not meeting the criteria defining an editorial in terms of personal opinion, certainly ticks the boxes in terms of relevance and importance.10 A subsequent editorial opportunity informed the readers of the withdrawal of Short Communications from the British Journal of Anaesthesia.11 Our current Editor-in-Chief has also used his Editorial slot to inform about the advent of online multiple choice questions at the beginning of this year.12
But it could be argued that the British Journal of Anaesthesia could better use its editorial space. Other journals use the editorial slot to truly present individual opinion. Agree or not, you cannot help being fascinated by what some folk have to say—take a recent article in Science by its Editor-in-Chief Donald Kennedy: one may not know what ‘whack-a mole-is’, but my goodness you can tell this man has real passion for what he writes about, in that in-your-face all-American way.13 Editorials like this increase the readability and, dare one say, enjoyment factor of journals. However, the open access journal, Medscape General Medicine, does take the editorial too far and authors seem to use their editorials as personal advertising space or an opportunity for plugging an organization or their latest book.
Titles of editorials seem to be important too. A close colleague of mine scorns the use of the so-called catchy titles designed simply to intrigue; he considers them to be superficial and unscientific. There are a several worthy examples in this journal: ‘Four and a fifth and all that’; ‘Location, location, location’; ‘The king of the blind extends his frontiers’; ‘Not waving but drowning’; ‘How low can we go?’; and ‘A momentary pause’. A couple more favourites are not in the British Journal of Anaesthesia but worth mentioning: ‘People are not rice’ and ‘Never play leapfrog with a unicorn’. I leave you to investigate.
Senior Lecturer in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care
School of Medicine, University of Aberdeen
Abderdeen
UK
E-mail: h.f.galley{at}abdn.ac.uk
References
1 Editorial. Some remarks on post-operative lung trouble. Br J Anaesth (1924) 1:128–34.
2 Editorial. Br J Anaesth (1950) 22:1–3.
3 Nash TP. What use is pain? Br J Anaesth (2005) 94:146–9.
4 Drummond GB, Dozier MF. Just give me the facts. Br J Anaesth (2007) 99:608–10.
5 Kamming D, Gardam M, Chung F. Anaesthesia and SARS. Br J Anaesth (2003) 90:715–8.
6 Myles PS. Why we need large randomized studies in anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth (1999) 83:833–4.
7 Vaughan RS. The only man to have all his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe. Br J Anaesth (1999) 82:663–5.
8 Hunter JM. Manuscript submission to the BJA: keeping abreast of the times, or keeping up with the Jones'? Br J Anaesth (2003) 90:6–7.
9 Harrop-Griffiths W. Keeping up with the Jones' or Joneses? Br J Anaesth (2003) 90:708.
10 Hunter JM. Ethics in publishing; are we practising to the highest possible standards? Br J Anaesth (2000) 85:341–3.
11 Hunter JM. The latest changes... no more shorts. Br J Anaesth (2004) 92:7.
12 Howell S, Rowbotham DJ, Reilly CS. On-line continuing education—another step forward. Br J Anaesth (2007) 98(3).
13 Kennedy D. Toxic dilemmas. Science (2007) 318:1217.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||