Wiebe Douglas J, Flynn Kalen, Branas Charles C
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Blockley Hall Room 902, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, USA.
School of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Inj Epidemiol. 2017 Dec;4(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s40621-016-0100-9. Epub 2017 Feb 6.
Letters to the editor are an important venue for scientific discussion and ensuring accountability of authors and editors. We investigated the content and tone of letters to the editor published in response to research on having a firearm in the home as it relates to homicide and suicide.
A recent meta-analysis found 16 analytic studies of household firearm access and homicide and suicide. We audited the letters to the editor emanating from those 16 articles. Each letter was coded for themes by two raters and analyzed using descriptive statistics and cluster analysis. For comparison, we also coded and analyzed the content of letters to the editor written in response to all other articles that were published in the same journal volumes where the firearm articles appeared.
We identified 30 letters regarding the gun in the home studies: 24 (80%) letters to the editor and 6 (20%) replies from original authors. Of the 24 letters to the editor, 30% contained no scientific discussion, 46% made a political reference, 17% criticized the original author's character, and 25% criticized the journal. Moreover, 29% made a pro-gun reference, 25% made an anti-gun reference, 13% referred to the constitutional right to bear arms, 13% referred to the National Rifle Association (NRA), and 0% referred to advocacy organizations known to be in opposition to the NRA. Of these themes mentioned in letters to the editor, only the NRA was mentioned in a response by an original author. The median number of scientific citations in letters to the editor was one versus four in replies from original authors. In the articles on topics other than firearms that were analyzed as a point of comparison, only 8% contained no scientific discussion, 4% made a political reference, 2% criticized the authors' character, and 0% criticized the journal.
Letters to the editor in response to epidemiologic research on guns in the home contain considerable content that minimally advances scientific discussion; author responses meet a higher standard for science and civility, as do letters to the editor regarding research topics other than firearms. The scientific study of firearm violence could be better served with more letters containing greater scientific commentary and dissent.
致编辑的信是进行科学讨论以及确保作者和编辑责任的重要平台。我们调查了针对家中拥有枪支与杀人及自杀相关研究发表的致编辑信的内容和语气。
最近一项荟萃分析发现了16项关于家庭枪支获取与杀人及自杀的分析性研究。我们审核了源自这16篇文章的致编辑信。两名评分者对每封信进行主题编码，并使用描述性统计和聚类分析进行分析。为作比较，我们还对在发表枪支相关文章的同一期刊卷中针对所有其他文章撰写的致编辑信的内容进行了编码和分析。
我们识别出30封关于家中枪支研究的信件：24封（80%）致编辑的信以及6封（20%）原作者的回复。在24封致编辑的信中，30%未包含科学讨论，46%提及政治，17%批评原作者的品格，25%批评该期刊。此外，29%提及支持枪支，25%提及反对枪支，13%提及携带武器的宪法权利，13%提及全国步枪协会（NRA），0%提及已知反对NRA的倡导组织。在致编辑信中提到的这些主题中，只有NRA在原作者的回复中被提及。致编辑信中科学引用的中位数为1，而原作者回复中的中位数为4。在作为比较点进行分析的非枪支主题文章中，只有8%未包含科学讨论，4%提及政治，2%批评作者品格，0%批评该期刊。
针对家中枪支的流行病学研究的致编辑信包含大量对推进科学讨论作用甚微的内容；作者回复在科学性和文明性方面达到了更高标准，与关于非枪支研究主题的致编辑信情况相同。如果有更多包含更多科学评论和不同意见的信件，对枪支暴力的科学研究将更有益处。
