Seventy six senior academics from 11 countries invite The BMJ’s editors to reconsider their policy of rejecting qualitative research on the grounds of low priority. They challenge the journal to develop a proactive, scholarly, and pluralist approach to research that aligns with its stated mission
We are concerned that The BMJ seems to have developed a policy of rejecting qualitative research on the grounds that such studies are “low priority,” “unlikely to be highly cited,” “lacking practical value,” or “not of interest to our readers” (box). Here, we argue that The BMJ should develop and publish a formal policy on qualitative and mixed method research and that this should include appropriate and explicit criteria for judging the relevance of submissions. We acknowledge that (as with all methods) some qualitative research is poor quality, badly written, inaccessible, or irrelevant to the journal’s readership. We also acknowledge that many of The BMJ’s readers (not to mention its reviewers and editors) may not have been formally trained to read, conduct, or evaluate qualitative studies. We see these caveats as opportunities not threats.
Thank you for sending us your paper. We read it with interest but I am sorry to say that qualitative studies are an extremely low priority for The BMJ. Our research shows that they are not as widely accessed, downloaded, or cited as other research.
We receive over 8000 submissions a year and accept less than 4%. We do therefore have to make hard decisions on just how interesting an article will be to our general clinical readers, how much it adds, and how much practical value it will be.
The BMJ says its mission is to lead the debate on health and to engage, inform, and stimulate all doctors, researchers, and other health professionals in ways that enable …