Publication on Circumcision in the Medical Literature

The Role of an Editor
  • Hugh N. Whitfield


The British Journal of Urology (BJU) was founded in 1929 by British urologists as an independent charitable company. Many specialist journals are owned either by their specialist associations or by a publisher. Neither situation applies to the BJU. This is an important distinction, bringing with it additional responsibilities for both the journal company and the editor. There have been five previous editors. I became editor in 1994 and was given a five-year term of office. The BJU Company appoints the editor who is then responsible for developing the journal in all its aspects. New developments, particularly those which have financial implications, must be approved by the BJU Company executive, who may take advice not only from the editor but also from the publishers and from any other outside expert that they choose.


Ethical Issue Rectal Prolapse Journal Company Male Circumcision Medical Indication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Horton R. Surgical research or comic opera: Questions but few answers. Lancet 1996;347:984.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frankel S. Annals of medicine. Urology 1997;50:319–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whitfield H, Hendry B, eds Notice of duplicate publication. BJU 1996;77:5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Riis P. Ethical issues in medical publishing. Brit J Urol (supplement)1995:76;1–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gomez J, Puyol M, Menendez V. Secondary megaprepuce. BJU 1996;78:948–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Özdemir E. Significantly increased complication risks with mass circumcisions. BJU 1997;80:36–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Remondino PC. History of Circumcision from the Earliest Times to the Present. Philadelphia FA Davis Co. 1891. [Reprinted New York: AMS Press 1974.]Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wallerstein E. Circumcision: the uniquely American medical enigma. Urol CIin North Am 1985;12:123–32.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bolande R P. Ritualistic surgery: circumcision and tonsillectomy. N Engl J Med 1969;280:591–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kistler SL. Rapid bloodless circumcision of male and female and its technic. JAMA 1910;54:1782–3.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on the Fetus and Newborn. Standards and Recommendations for Hospital Care of Newborn Infants. 5th edition. Evanston Illinois: American Academy of Pediatrics. 1971:71. See a1so: Thompson HC, King LR, Knox E, Korones SB. Report of the ad hoc task force on circumcision. Pediatrics 1975;56:610–1.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schoen EJ, Anderson G, Bohon C, Hinman F Jr, Poland RL, Wakeman EM. Report of the task force on circumcision. Pediatrics 1989;84:388–91.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schoen EJ. The status of circumcision of newborns. N Engl J Med 1990;322:1308–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Souther P. No one can claim to have a monopoly on deciding what is ethical. BMJ 1977;314:1477.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugh N. Whitfield

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations