Response to Both Letters

Author's Response Letters to the Editor

Sir—Our aim was to start a debate and to encourage an appropriate body to act. Gallacher’s letter is therefore most appreciated. The starting point is that much good work in developing questionnaires is wasted. Too often, mistakes are repeated and we lack agreed standards for validating questionnaires. Existing questionnaires are not always readily available and the protocol for their use is no...

Author's response to self-directed learning letters.

To the Editor: I thank Drs Guglielmino, Bulik, and Shokar for their reactions 1,2 to my commentary 3 on self-directed learning (SDL). In spite of what seems to have been the perception of these authors, however, my initial commentary was not so much a critique of the Self-directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) as a strong encouragement to explore avenues of research beyond it. Since the SDLR...

Looking Beyond FDA Warning Letters to Explore Unforeseen Trouble Spots in eDTCA: A Response to Recent Commentaries

Research-agenda Bias: letters to the editor

Of Politicians and Technocrats, and Why Global Health Scholars Are Inevitably a Bit of Both: A Response to Recent Commentaries