[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.166.3.44. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
April 1951

Editorial

AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1951;45(4):365-366. doi:10.1001/archopht.1951.01700010373001
Abstract

The most difficult task of the Editorial Board of a scientific periodical is the rejection of those manuscripts which are judged unsuitable for publication. Suitability is a rather vague characterization, based on many different and often diverse qualities. During the last two years one reason for rejection has occurred more frequently than any other. More than two thirds of the rejected manuscripts were returned to their authors because of failure to provide adequate controls from which the reader could judge for himself whether the author's conclusions merit acceptance.

It seems strange that this should be so, in view of the fact that most contributors to our journals have had excellent scientific training. However, ophthalmologists are not alone in failing to provide adequate controls in their papers. Ross1 has recently called attention to the fact that 45 per cent of articles published by a group of leading medical periodicals in

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