[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.205.176.107. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
February 14, 1966

"Sic"-ness in False "Conclusions."

JAMA. 1966;195(7):96. doi:10.1001/jama.1966.03100070056016

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

In eagerness to transmit to readers those pippins of the publishing world which its own "eyes" delight in, JAMA includes "From Other Pages." One nugget, "Science at the Bedside," appeared in the Aug 9 JAMA (advertising p 74). Perhaps singlemindedness is the only plausible defense of the otherwise inexplicable if not inadvertent "sic" which JAMA (personified) introduced into the third paragraph of that piece. But what explanation is there for the error in the fifth paragraph (line six should begin "not merely as diseased tissues") or for that in the sixth paragraph (line three should conclude "... the continued clinical application of...."); or how can justification be made for the error in the title of the source article? (It was "The Basic Elements of Clinical Science" and not "Conclusions," as given.) The author of the source article, Alvan R. Feinstein, MD, associate professor of medicine at Yale University, provides a polite

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×