LETter To the EditoR Standards (LETTERS): Considerations for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors

Ilke Coskun Benlidayi; Latika Gupta

doi:10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e296

Abstract

Correspondence in the form of letters to the editor serves multiple scholarly purposes, including critiquing previously published articles, engaging in discourse with other correspondents, commenting on the journal's structure or style, and contributing insights for future publications. The composition of such letters warrants meticulous attention, as they play a crucial role in fostering communication between the journal and its readership. Adherence to specific principles is essential in crafting an effective letter to the editor. These communications should be concise, lucid, and adhere to a professional tone. The content should be constructive in nature and substantiated by rigorous scientific evidence and appropriate citations. The structure of a letter to the editor typically encompasses several key components: a title, an opening section, the main body of the correspondence, a closing statement, and a list of references. This article aims to establish Letter to the Editor Standards as a comprehensive guide for authors, reviewers, and editorial boards, thereby enhancing the quality and impact of this crucial form of academic discourse.

INTRODUCTION

Letters to the editor represent a distinct manuscript category with specific scholarly purposes. Primarily, they critique previously published articles in the same journal or rebut other letters.1 These communications may also address journal sections, format, or style, offering constructive criticism that balances strengths and areas for improvement.2 3 Additionally, letters can suggest content for future issues.2 The format and content of letters may vary based on their intended purpose, necessitating adherence to specific recommendations for each type.

Letters to the editor serve dual primary functions: facilitating scholarly discourse between the journal and its readership,1 4 and safeguarding the integrity of the peer-review process.1 These communications, while addressed to editors, primarily aim to engage the broader readership rather than initiate dialogue with editorial staff.1 Their core purpose is to present alternative evidence or novel perspectives that enhance the credibility of both authors and the journal.1 Content may include (but not be limited to) critical analysis of data usage, responses to published work, and elucidation of limitations or alternative viewpoints. The specific elements may vary according to journal requirements, necessitating tailored approaches to composition.

Letters to the editor serve as vital components of scholarly journals, fostering democratic discourse within the academic community.5 These concise communications possess significant potential for knowledge dissemination and exchange,6 playing a crucial role in the advancement and evolution of scientific inquiry across diverse fields.7 Priority levels of correspondence items may vary for established journals, such as The Lancet, Journal of Korean Medical Sciences and Nature on one hand and emerging gold open access journals on the other. Journals may consider giving priority to letters that provide significant insights, critique, or commentary on recently published articles. Journals are recommended to reflect such priorities in their instructions pages.8

While the craft of composing letters to the editor has garnered attention in various publications, there remains a notable absence of standardized recommendations for their construction. Therefore, this article aims to establish comprehensive standards for letters to the editor by proposing evidence-based recommendations and providing a pertinent checklist, thereby enhancing the quality and impact of this essential form of academic correspondence.

SEARCH STRATEGY

PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched by using the keywords “letter to the editor,” “letter,” “writing,” “write.” Priority was given papers published during the last 10 years. Congress abstracts, thesis, unpublished data, and non-English written articles were excluded. The reference lists of the selected articles were thoroughly reviewed. Any additional pertinent literature was subsequently incorporated into the analysis. We followed the recommendations for narrative reviews.9

PRINCIPLES OF WRITING A LETTER TO THE EDITOR

To ensure scientific rigor and quality, letters to the editor should adhere to the following principles:

• Authors should employ a formal style and maintain an academic tone throughout the correspondence.10

• The purpose of the letter should be succinctly articulated at the outset.

• The text should be concise yet unambiguous, striking a balance between brevity and clarity.10 11

• Maintain scientific credibility, all arguments and assertions should be substantiated by relevant, peer-reviewed evidence.

• Conclude with a concise summary, emphasizing key messages or future perspectives.

• Include figures or tables when essential to elucidate a point, while adhering to the specific journal’s guidelines regarding such inclusions.5

Correspondence pertaining to previously published articles should adhere to the following additional principles:

• Explicit reference to the article(s) under discussion should be made, accompanied by proper citations.

• Substantive methodological critiques, particularly those addressing study design or statistical analyses, must be supported by appropriate references.

• The correspondence should be structured as a letter, distinct from a post-publication peer review report.

• Authors should maintain a collegial tone, eschewing language that could be construed as disrespectful when critiquing previous publications.

• Comments should be constructive, adhering to principles of evidence-based and precise academic discourse. Purely critical remarks without offering improvements are discouraged.

• To maximize relevance and impact, the letter should be submitted within a timely manner following the original publication.2

Response letters to correspondence should adhere to the following additional principles:

• Address each concern raised in the original letter comprehensively, following a thorough review.

• Substantiate all responses with appropriate evidence and citations.

• Acknowledge valid criticisms or comments with academic humility.

• When disagreeing with critiques, provide robust counter-arguments supported by relevant evidence and references.

• Maintain a courteous and rational tone, avoiding emotionality.

RECOMMENDED PARTS OF A LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Title

The title of a letter to the editor should reflect the primary viewpoint of the letter. If the letter is written to discuss a previously published article, it should be kept in mind that the potential response from the author(s) of the article discussed would be published under the same title of the letter.5 Authors of the letter to the editor should avoid redundant use of the article title, but strive for concise and compelling phrasing.3

Opening section and salutation

Letters to the editor may start by salutation: “Dear Editor” or “To the Editor.” The salutation part in letters is not always appropriate since some open access journals run without Editor-in-Chief. And, some journals publish letters by omitting the salutation part, particularly when such letters are case reports and brief communications. Afterwards, the author(s) is/are expected to state why they intended to write that article. The aim could be commenting on a paper previously published or discussing a point of interest for the potential readers of the journal as standalone communications about issues.5 If the article aimed to discuss a published study, relevant article’s title should be clearly articulated and referred to ensure a definite identification.3

Body of the letter

In this section, a deeper insight to the topic should be given. The body could include one or more paragraphs while obeying the word-count rules of the targeted journal. An approach of combining related content into multipart sections to efficiently condense information can be applied. This allows for more content to be presented within a limited space, optimizing the use of journal pages. The authors should also follow the principles of scientific writing.

Letters on previously published materials may raise methodological concerns, present disagreement with the interpretation of data or conclusion, or controversial aspects. Letters to the editor should interact with published material in a distinctive manner and advance the content in innovative ways. Letters to the editor serve to stimulate discourse on published articles, potentially drawing attention to overlooked research.5 While avoiding redundant summaries or reiterations of the original work,3 5 these communications may offer both critical and supportive commentary.12 Authors should eschew nonspecific, trivial, or inflammatory statements,4 instead providing evidence-based observations grounded in thorough literature review.4 13 When addressing recent publications, comprehensive examination of the source material is essential to ensure comprehensive and pertinent commentary.3 This approach fosters meaningful academic dialogue and contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Closing

The closing section should succinctly summarize the key takeaways and provide brief recommendations that could facilitate the progression of the specific subject matter. Limiting the closing section to a concise paragraph is recommended.5

References

Empirical evidence is foundational to scholarly discourse, and letters to the editor are no exception. Citations play a crucial role in these communications, anchoring statements in published research, established facts, or theoretical frameworks. In correspondence addressing original articles, references serve to contextualize and reinforce the content under discussion.2 While authors may judiciously cite their own relevant work, it is paramount to maintain academic integrity and avoid unwarranted self-promotion. The accuracy and currency of citations are essential,3 as is their judicious selection, given the typical constraints on reference numbers in letters to the editor. This necessitates a strategic approach to citation, prioritizing the most pertinent and impactful sources to support the letter's key arguments. It is also important to distinguish own ideas from others’ scientific facts, peer-reviewed, and evidence-based publications. Accurately citing the primary sources is the standard practice for developing scholarly information.14

DISCUSSION

Letter to the editor is an essential component of scholarly publication. Letters can highlight missing and/or erroneous points of recently published items. They can serve as a control-mechanism for peer-review process.15 Letters to the editor have gained increasing significance and prevalence in academic publishing. This trend is driven by authors’ preference for concise formats when targeting high-impact journals, and journals' inclination towards shorter pieces that don't negatively affect their impact factors. These letters serve as an effective medium for presenting focused information and offer an entry point for students into scholarly writing, contributing to continuing medical education.10 16 17 The art of distilling complex ideas into a letter format demonstrates a refined skill in academic communication. Consequently, letters to the editor play a pivotal role in maintaining the rigor of scientific discourse and publication standards.10

Composing letters to the editor is regarded as a step for initiating scholarly activity. The evaluation of existing research can help develop further research. It also allows beginners to gain valuable experience in journal submission.18 Educating researchers on writing letters to the editor would be of benefit. With this specific aim, Kataoka et al.18 conducted a 90-minute workshop. After the workshop, nearly 80% of participants demonstrated proficiency in explaining falsificationism, how to check author instructions, and how to write letters to the editor. The researchers subsequently developed an e-learning platform, offering video lectures on the workshop content and additional scholarly activities, including systematic review methodology and prediction model study protocols.18 Such initiatives exemplify the type of scholarly approaches that experienced authors and editors should adopt to enhance the quality of scientific writing. The cultivation of robust scientific writing and critical thinking skills among students is paramount.19 20 Gokani et al.21 demonstrated that national journal club sessions significantly bolstered medical students' confidence in critical appraisal processes, with participants highly valuing these educational opportunities. These findings underscore the importance of structured interventions in developing essential academic skills among emerging scholars.

A publication decision of any scholarly article is determined by factors such as its topic of interest, relevance to the journal, writing quality, readability, and overall contribution to the field of academic medicine.5 22 In order to be appropriate for publication, a letter to the editor should also encourage intellectual discussion between authors and readers.3 Through the process of letters to the editor, a previously published article undergoes post-publication peer-review.4 23 From editors’ point of view, letters to the editor should facilitate the clarification of uncertainties, rectification of errors, and reinforcement of established truths; consequently serving as a tool for updating existing articles.4 The aforementioned points underscore the necessity of these standards to prevent the publication of irrational and superficial content while increasing the number of informative, evidence-based, and widely visible articles.24

In crafting letters to the editor, adherence to both established principles and journal-specific guidelines is crucial. Authors must meticulously review the publication's instructions, paying particular attention to word limits and policies regarding tables and figures. Ensuring compatibility with the journal's format and editorial policies is essential for successful submission.4

While established guidelines exist for various article types,25 26 27 standardized criteria for letters to the editor remain notably absent. This article addresses this gap by providing a structured framework for such correspondence. We hope these guidelines will serve as a comprehensive resource for authors, reviewers, and editors, enhancing the quality and consistency of this crucial form of academic discourse.

CONCLUSION

Letters to the editor constitute a vital form of scholarly communication, serving as a critical nexus between academic journals and their readership. The composition of such correspondence represents an essential facet of academic engagement and discourse. This article delineates key principles and evidence-based recommendations for crafting effective letters to the editor, thereby enhancing their impact and scholarly value. To further support authors in this endeavor, we have developed a comprehensive checklist for Letter to the Editor Standards (Table 1). This checklist aims to systematize the approach to letter composition, ensuring adherence to best practices in academic correspondence and fostering more robust scholarly dialogue within the scientific community.

Table 1

Checklist for LETter To the EditoR Standards (LETTERS)

Sections	Items	✓
Title	Concisely reflects the letter’s main point	□
Title	Includes relevant keywords	□
Opening	Clearly states the letter’s purpose	□
Opening	References previous paper(s) appropriately^a	□
Body	Presents ideas concisely and clearly	□
	Maintains a polite and rational tone	□
	Supports arguments with evidence to maintain scientific soundness	□
	Refers to the figure(s)/table(s), if included	□
	Addresses all concerns/queries^b	□
Closing	Summarizes key points	□
Closing	Provides future perspective if applicable	□

^aFor letters commenting on a previously published article.

^bFor letters responding to a letter to the editor.

Notes

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

Conceptualization: Coskun Benlidayi I, Gupta L.
Methodology: Coskun Benlidayi I, Gupta L.
Supervision: Coskun Benlidayi I, Gupta L.
Writing - original draft: Coskun Benlidayi I, Gupta L.
Writing - review & editing: Coskun Benlidayi I, Gupta L.

References

1. Ali MJ. The art and craft of writing a ‘Letter to the Editor’. Semin Ophthalmol. 2022; 37(3):269–270. PMID: 38014736.

2. McGrath JM, Brandon D. Why write a letter to the editor? Adv Neonatal Care. 2017; 17(2):77–78. PMID: 28362696.

3. Siau K, El-Omar E. How to write a letter to the editor. United European Gastroenterol J. 2020; 8(8):981–983.

4. Ataullah AH, Uddin MS, Rashid R, Rahman S, Rahman MM. How to write and publish a letter to the editor. IJS Short Reports. 2021; 6(4):e32.

5. Alexandraki I, Roberts LW. Writing a letter to the editor: guidance from the editors. Acad Med. 2022; 97(4):473–474. PMID: 35353726.

6. Tierney E, O’Rourke C, Fenton JE. What is the role of ‘the letter to the editor’? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015; 272(9):2089–2093. PMID: 25231709.

7. Kumar R. Role and importance of journal reader: scientific contribution of letter to editor. J Family Med Prim Care. 2022; 11(8):4117–4118. PMID: 36352936.

8. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Gorin SV, Kitas GD. Upgrading instructions for authors of scholarly journals. Croat Med J. 2014; 55(3):271–280. PMID: 24891286.

9. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Blackmore H, Kitas GD. Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatol Int. 2011; 31(11):1409–1417. PMID: 21800117.

10. Johnson KA. Writing a letter to the editor. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2020; 33(6):v.

11. Peh WC, Ng KH. Writing a letter to the editor. Singapore Med J. 2010; 51(7):532–535. PMID: 20730391.

12. Nundy S, Kakar A, Bhutta ZA. How to write a letter to the editor?. Nundy S, Kakar A, Bhutta ZA, editors. How to Practice Academic Medicine and Publish from Developing Countries? Singapore: Springer;2022. p. 267–270.

13. Ecker ED, Skelly AC. Conducting a winning literature search. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2010; 1(1):9–14. PMID: 23544018.

14. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Gerasimov AN, Kostyukova EI, Kitas GD. Preserving the integrity of citations and references by all stakeholders of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30(11):1545–1552. PMID: 26538996.

15. Süer E, Yaman Ö. How to write an editorial letter? Turk J Urol. 2013; 39(Suppl 1):41–43. PMID: 26328135.

16. Saeki S. Continuous writing, reviewing, and editing by physicians. JMA J. 2024; 7(1):136–137. PMID: 38314415.

17. Edwards R, White M, Gray J, Fischbacher C. Use of a journal club and letter-writing exercise to teach critical appraisal to medical undergraduates. Med Educ. 2001; 35(7):691–694. PMID: 11437973.

18. Kataoka Y, Sakurai A, Mori H, Yoshida H, Nakano Y, Fujii K, et al. A workshop on writing letters to the editor. MedEdPublish (2016). 2020; 9:6. PMID: 38073822.

19. Whittaker HT, Skerritt L, Dankner M, Eisenberg MJ. An exercise in scientific writing for physicians in training. Clin Invest Med. 2020; 43(1):E35–E38.

20. Nuzzo JL. Letter writing assignment for exercise physiology students. Adv Physiol Educ. 2023; 47(2):346–351. PMID: 36995915.

21. Gokani SA, Sharma E, Sharma T, Moudhgalya SV, Selvendran SS, Aggarwal N. Impact of a national journal club and letter writing session on improving medical students’ confidence with critical appraisal. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019; 10:1081–1087. PMID: 31920419.

22. Kojima T, Popiel HA. Using guidelines to improve scientific writing: tips on use of correct verb tenses for non-native English-speaking researchers. J Korean Med Sci. 2022; 37(29):e226. PMID: 35880502.

23. Pandarathodiyil AK, Vijayan SP, Sivapathasundharam B. An article on “letter to the editor”. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2023; 27(2):254–256. PMID: 37854909.

24. Gupta L, Gasparyan AY, Zimba O, Misra DP. Scholarly publishing and journal targeting in the time of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: a cross-sectional survey of rheumatologists and other specialists. Rheumatol Int. 2020; 40(12):2023–2030. PMID: 33048199.

25. Gagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, Moher D, Sox H, Riley D. CARE Group. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. BMJ Case Rep. 2013; 2013:bcr2013201554.

26. Benlidayi IC, Gupta L. CAse-BAsed REview sTandards (CABARET): considerations for authors, reviewers, and editors. J Korean Med Sci. 2024; 39(30):e225. PMID: 39106889.

27. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010; 152(11):726–732. PMID: 20335313.