Oh, the Times! Tabloids and Other Non-Peer-Reviewed Publications

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Surveys show that many ophthalmologists now include non-peer-reviewed communications in their reading. These communications, both in newspaper (tabloid) and journal format, convey various types of information. Although I don’t prefer the term throwawaysfor such publications, many physicians employ this designation. We wish to remind the reader that such publications do not always distinguish scientific fact and informed judgment from extemporaneous clinical opinion and anecdotal observation. The blurring of this distinction is important; most readers expect the written word that appears in a scientific format to have been previously screened for merit. Most readers expect this screening to have been performed by scientific or clinical peers under the direction of a responsible editorial board. We expect this because, during the decade of our training as physicians and ophthalmologists, we have learned to trust such carefully reviewed publications as the New England Journal of Medicinethe Archives of Ophthalmology, and the.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1641-1642
Number of pages2
JournalArchives of Ophthalmology
Volume103
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - 1985
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Thioguanine
Publications
Communication
Physicians
New England
Newspapers
Ophthalmology
Reading
Observation
Ophthalmologists

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Oh, the Times! Tabloids and Other Non-Peer-Reviewed Publications. / Finkelstein, Daniel.

In: Archives of Ophthalmology, Vol. 103, No. 11, 1985, p. 1641-1642.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b136a22de03f4f6084d978f03d41fe65,
title = "Oh, the Times!: Tabloids and Other Non-Peer-Reviewed Publications",
abstract = "Surveys show that many ophthalmologists now include non-peer-reviewed communications in their reading. These communications, both in newspaper (tabloid) and journal format, convey various types of information. Although I don’t prefer the term throwawaysfor such publications, many physicians employ this designation. We wish to remind the reader that such publications do not always distinguish scientific fact and informed judgment from extemporaneous clinical opinion and anecdotal observation. The blurring of this distinction is important; most readers expect the written word that appears in a scientific format to have been previously screened for merit. Most readers expect this screening to have been performed by scientific or clinical peers under the direction of a responsible editorial board. We expect this because, during the decade of our training as physicians and ophthalmologists, we have learned to trust such carefully reviewed publications as the New England Journal of Medicinethe Archives of Ophthalmology, and the.",
author = "Daniel Finkelstein",
year = "1985",
doi = "10.1001/archopht.1985.01050110035017",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "103",
pages = "1641--1642",
journal = "JAMA Ophthalmology",
issn = "2168-6165",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Oh, the Times!

T2 - Tabloids and Other Non-Peer-Reviewed Publications

AU - Finkelstein, Daniel

PY - 1985

Y1 - 1985

N2 - Surveys show that many ophthalmologists now include non-peer-reviewed communications in their reading. These communications, both in newspaper (tabloid) and journal format, convey various types of information. Although I don’t prefer the term throwawaysfor such publications, many physicians employ this designation. We wish to remind the reader that such publications do not always distinguish scientific fact and informed judgment from extemporaneous clinical opinion and anecdotal observation. The blurring of this distinction is important; most readers expect the written word that appears in a scientific format to have been previously screened for merit. Most readers expect this screening to have been performed by scientific or clinical peers under the direction of a responsible editorial board. We expect this because, during the decade of our training as physicians and ophthalmologists, we have learned to trust such carefully reviewed publications as the New England Journal of Medicinethe Archives of Ophthalmology, and the.

AB - Surveys show that many ophthalmologists now include non-peer-reviewed communications in their reading. These communications, both in newspaper (tabloid) and journal format, convey various types of information. Although I don’t prefer the term throwawaysfor such publications, many physicians employ this designation. We wish to remind the reader that such publications do not always distinguish scientific fact and informed judgment from extemporaneous clinical opinion and anecdotal observation. The blurring of this distinction is important; most readers expect the written word that appears in a scientific format to have been previously screened for merit. Most readers expect this screening to have been performed by scientific or clinical peers under the direction of a responsible editorial board. We expect this because, during the decade of our training as physicians and ophthalmologists, we have learned to trust such carefully reviewed publications as the New England Journal of Medicinethe Archives of Ophthalmology, and the.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0022152163&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0022152163&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archopht.1985.01050110035017

DO - 10.1001/archopht.1985.01050110035017

M3 - Article

C2 - 4062630

AN - SCOPUS:0022152163

VL - 103

SP - 1641

EP - 1642

JO - JAMA Ophthalmology

JF - JAMA Ophthalmology

SN - 2168-6165

IS - 11

ER -