Discussion Forum: Patterns of Drowning in Australia

These comments relate to the first revised version.
Click here for the peer review comments on the original submission

Index of comments

7.10.99 - 1. Covering letter with revised manuscript, by Ian Mackie
15.10.99 - 2. Comments by Fish
27.10.99 - 3. Editorial comments and decision by Ruth Armstrong


Thank you for your time and patience in considering my paper which I have totally rewritten according to your recent instructions with the comments of the two reviewers and DJ from the ABS. In fact, I phoned DJ only three days ago for an update on the attitude of the Bureau to thei information on indigenous deaths. His further information is included in this new version of the paper.

The Abstract is totally rewritten

The Introduction is totally rewritten so my beloved Shakespeare is gone.

The Results section is so different that it has been quite impossible for me to use underlining, italics, bold or capitals as you requested. Almost none of the original remains. It is a new paper although the information is the same. DJ in the early stages corrected some of my statistical interpretations and the numbers presented today agree with his calculations.

The discussion section is also totally rewritten.

I am most grateful for the advice of all the reviewers whether the paper is accepted or not and would be pleased if you could convey to them my appreciation, especially as I had no wish to remain anonymous. The webpage system has been enjoyable and simple but a little frustrating with so much waiting.
Ian Mackie

Fri Oct 15 10:12:22 1999Comments from Fish.

I am pleased to be provided with the additional opportunity to comment on this substantially revised article.

I note that the article has been substantially reduced from 178 para to 81 para in the body of the text, and figures reduced from 17 to 12. It now reads much more as an article that would be of interest to the general medical readership and has a focus of providing information of value in developing preventive strategies.

I have the following minor suggestions/amendments to consider:

1. The overall number of figures is still high at 12. Can this be reduced further. In reading the discussion section figures 6 and 7 are least informative and the essential points are contained in the text at paras 33-37. Suggest delete figs 6 and 7 and consequent amendment to paras 34 and 35.

2. Change heading of fig 2 to reflect para 28 to " 346 ocean and estuary drownings".

3. Para 29 refers to sex distribution in fig 3 which is not contained. If this to be included use format of fig 9.

4. A minor quibble at para 75. Change "quite unique" to unique, as the quite is redundant .

Fish

Wed Oct 27 19:14:04 1999Outcome of the Editorial meeting and Editorial decision re "Patterns Editorial decision re "Patterns of drowning in Australia"

Thanks to Dr Mackie for the submission of the revised manuscript and to those reviewers who offered further comment. We are pleased to accept this paper for publication in the electronic journal and also in our 1999 Christmas issue.

The version which appears in the print journal may be substantially sub-edited (galleys will be sent to Dr Mackie for approval).

For the version which will be published on this site, we would ask Dr Mackie to have a final look at the methods section, which is a little unclear in the current version. You need to make it clear exactly what variables you looked at (age, sex etc) at this early stage. If you send us any changes by e-mail, we can edit the manuscript on the site.

Thanks once again, everyone for your participation.


Ruth Armstrong, assistant editor, MJA