This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor.
—Thanks to physicians' voracious intellectual appetite for medical research and writing, the main pediatric publications—unlike Life—are still alive, in the face of dwindling support for research. They are alive, but not well.Quality of the contents has deteriorated. This is clearly not due to a dearth of contributions. Editors-in-chief are only too prone to reject a good article on the grounds that a hundred better ones are lying on their desks. The crux of the problem, probably, lies in unwieldly system of manuscript screening and revision. All too often, contributions are expected to fit a Procrustean frame of habit or policy. "Pruning" frequently becomes decapitation. "Revision" and "reorientation" blunt the thrust of the article until it becomes acceptable to reviewers but loses its original message. In an overconservative editorial-room atmosphere, speculation, circumstantial evidence, even sound rationale are all stamped as "pontification" and rejected. This is frequently
Ghadimi H. Triumph of Nonsense. Am J Dis Child. 1973;125(6):902. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1973.04160060098027