Gupta V K
Dubai Police Medical Services, United Arab Emirates.
J Med Ethics. 1996 Aug;22(4):243-4; discussion 245-6. doi: 10.1136/jme.22.4.243.
Substantive scientific letter writing is a cost-effective mode of complementing observational and experimental research. The value of such philosophically uncommitted and unsponsored well-balanced scientific activity has been relegated. Critical letter writing entails the abilities to: maintain rational scepticism; refuse to conform in order to explain data; persist in keeping common sense centre-stage; exercise logic to evaluate the biological significance of mathematical figures, including statistics, and the ability to sustain the will to share insights regarding disease mechanisms on an ostensibly lower research platform. During peer review, innovative letter writing may share the occasionally unfortunate fate of innovative research. Rejected scientific letters do not automatically lose copyright. Periodicals with high letter loads will see some valuable contributions wasted, but that is the price for maintaining autonomy in scientific publication. The scientific community is an integrated whole that must respect the rights of authors at all levels. Unauthorised forwarding of rejected letters sets the dangerous precedent of justifying unjust means.
撰写有实质内容的科学信函是一种经济高效的方式，可对观察性研究和实验性研究起到补充作用。这种不带有特定哲学倾向且无赞助的、平衡良好的科学活动的价值已被贬低。撰写批判性信函需要具备以下能力：保持理性怀疑；为解释数据而拒绝随波逐流；坚持将常识置于核心位置；运用逻辑来评估包括统计学在内的数学数据的生物学意义，以及在表面上较低的研究平台上分享有关疾病机制见解的意愿。在同行评审过程中，创新性信函撰写可能会遭遇与创新性研究偶尔相同的不幸命运。被拒的科学信函并不会自动丧失版权。信函刊载量高的期刊会有一些有价值的投稿被浪费，但这是在科学出版中保持自主性所付出的代价。科学界是一个整体，必须尊重各级作者的权利。未经授权转发被拒信函会开创以不正当手段为正当行为的危险先例。
