Intended for healthcare professionals

Letters The BMJ and qualitative research

The BMJ editors respond

BMJ 2016; 352 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1492 (Published 15 March 2016) Cite this as: BMJ 2016;352:i1492
  1. Elizabeth Loder, acting head of research1,
  2. Trish Groves, head of research1,
  3. Sara Schroter, senior researcher1,
  4. Jose G Merino, US research editor1,
  5. Wim Weber, European research editor1,
  6. Fiona Godlee, editor in chief1
  1. 1The BMJ, London WC1H 9JR, UK
  1. eloder{at}bmj.com

We appreciate the vigour and thoughtfulness of responders to Greenhalgh and colleagues’ open letter and our editorial.1 2 We will consult on recognising the best qualitative work, and will call for research methods and reporting articles on this.3

We agree with Byatt about the limited applicability of many trials. That’s why we give priority to comparative effectiveness and pragmatic trials.4 Bolland asks why we publish observational studies with limited generalisability.5 We try to choose studies with broad implications, bearing in mind methodological caveats.6

While journals pursue increased citations, researchers pursue publication in high impact journals.7 8The BMJ’s qualitative studies are on average less often accessed and cited than systematic reviews and some other designs. We publish research for our broad readership to help doctors make better decisions.

There is no ban on qualitative research in The BMJ, but nor do we plan to introduce a quota.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: TG declares that she is editor in chief of and receives salary from BMJ Open, a journal that welcomes qualitative research. EL declares that she is currently participating as a researcher in a qualitative study.

  • Full response at: http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i641/rr-13.

References

View Abstract