Biased information in BCMA voting package

Issue: BCMJ, vol. 54, No. 5, June 2012, Page 230 Letters

I am writing in respect to the recent process of the BCMA vote on the term limits bylaw amendment. I am but one member of the BCMA. I don’t really know how it runs, but do choose to vote after reviewing the information in our voting packages.

The voting package I received from the BCMA on the amendment included the Board’s recommendation to reject the proposal, a list of reasons why the proposal should be rejected, and a copy of the proposed amendment. There was no information on the merits of the proposal. I do not feel strongly about this particular referendum. I do feel strongly about the pro­cess utilized. 

I was shocked to receive a one-sided information package. I even show­ed it to my family; I couldn’t believe I had received such a biased document and wanted a second opinion as to whether I was reading it correctly. Unfortunately, I interpreted the biased document to mean that the other viewpoint had little merit. In general, I tend to support the opinions of people who I feel are elected to represent us and know much more about the issues than I do. I am offended as I feel that my good intentions have been taken advantage of. I am also embarrassed for casting a vote after recognizing I had received a biased package. 

After I mailed in my ballot, I re­ceived an e-mail supporting the alternate viewpoint. It was too late to change my vote, although I tried. I think this process was flawed and the results will not reflect the views of our membership. 

My sentiments should be considered by the BCMA group who put together the voting packages. I hope that votes to the members will be handled differently in the future.
—Jennifer Lajoie, MD

Jennifer Lajoie, MD,. Biased information in BCMA voting package. BCMJ, Vol. 54, No. 5, June, 2012, Page(s) 230 - Letters.

Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.

About the ICMJE and citation styles

The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.

An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.

BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:

  • Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
  • There is no period after the journal name.
  • Page numbers are not abbreviated.

For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit

BCMJ Guidelines for Authors

Leave a Reply