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 Sidney Shindell, M.D. (alias Benson):—
After considerable thought, I venture to suggest these truths. As you know, there is a pattern in publishing house and scientific society press releases regarding new texts and journals. With a unanimity beyond dispute, sponsors of new publications suggest that their periodicals fulfill a unique need and are indispensable to the specialist or general practitioner. A journal of the type outlined by you and commended by many of us here can change this entire picture. Our effort would fulfill no need, perform no useful function, and, therefore, no problems or disputes could be created. The articles would not have to be read, meaning a considerable saving in time for the busy clinician or academician. Since no value could be attached to either the advertisements or the scientific content, most readers would soon suggest that the mailman leave their copies in the post office. This
Soffer A. Revolutionary Medical Journalism. JAMA. 1962;182(3):314–315. doi:10.1001/jama.1962.03050420090027
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: