Correspondence  |   September 2018
Editorial Views and Policies
Author Notes
  • Papworth Hospital, Papworth Everard, Cambridge, United Kingdom (A.A.K.). Andrew.klein@nhs.net
  • (Accepted for publication May 17, 2018.)
    (Accepted for publication May 17, 2018.)×
Article Information
Correspondence
Correspondence   |   September 2018
Editorial Views and Policies
Anesthesiology 9 2018, Vol.129, 613. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000002354
Anesthesiology 9 2018, Vol.129, 613. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000002354
We thank Drs. Kharasch and Houle1  for commenting on an article2  and an editorial3  published in Anaesthesia in their Editorial Views. It would be more usual for questions to be posed to the authors of a journal article by means of correspondence to the primary journal, and we are sure that Drs. Carlisle, Loadsman, and McCulloch would be delighted to respond to any such letters. We would therefore refer the readers of Anesthesiology to such correspondence in Anaesthesia for further discussion of these articles and the issues arising.
In response to the specific suggestions made about the editorial policy of Anaesthesia, the Journal stands by its decision (and is supported in doing so by the Editorial Board) to screen all submitted randomized controlled trials for data distribution.4  However, we would like to point out that no article has ever been, or will ever be, rejected based on this screening alone5 ; a finding that a submission appears to have an unusual distribution of data is always followed by a request to the authors for original trial data,6 and it is the analysis of these data, along with the authors’ responses to further questioning, that leads to any decision to accept or reject. Many submissions initially flagged using this screening method are found to have done so through authors’ errors rather than intentional deception or worse.