Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Our choices
  1. Ellen J Weber
  1. Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-0208, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ellen J Weber, University of California San Francisco, Emergency Medicine, San Francisco, CA 94143-0208, USA;{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Many scientific journals these days have taken to designating a particularly intriguing, important or extremely well done paper that appears in that month’s issue. At the EMJ, we actually have several such papers, and I was thinking that perhaps our readers would like to know how I pick the EMJ’s Editor’s Choice, the Reader’s Choice and the Global Abstract.

First, EMJ has set a high bar for our research reports. We currently accept only 10% of the original articles submitted, some immediately without review and some after reviews, and even, regrettably, after revision. For the reader, this means essentially that every article is an Editor’s Choice as they are all of a high standard with regard to research question, methods, reporting of results and discussion of implications.

So what makes me pick something as an Editor’s Choice? Well, to be honest, it varies. Sometimes, the Editor’s Choice (for those who like a quicker read, I will make "EC" from now on) is a ‘seal of approval’ noting a study that uses a methodology that is higher on the evidence pyramid—prospective data collection, comparative (preferably randomised) …

View Full Text


  • Contributors EJW drafted the editorial. No funding was involved.

  • Funding The author has not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.