To the Editor.
—I am responding to the editorial on controlled circulation periodicals that appeared in the February 1986 issue of the Archives.A popular view among practicing physicians relative to scholarly publications is that they are: (1) too many and overstuffed; (2) that many of them are the creation of specialists and subspecialists desirous of having intramural communications; (3) that most of the articles are inaccurate and/or meaningless; and (4) that most journals and articles are solely for the edification of the author and his or her institution. In addition, many practicing physicians have had the experience of seeing articles in scholarly journals published by individuals who are less than credible as researchers or scholars. Is it any wonder then that the so-called controlled circulation journals have gained a toehold with practicing physicians?Thank you for raising the issue in your journal and giving us practicing physicians a chance
Chambliss JF. Controlled Circulation Journals. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146(6):1225. doi:10.1001/archinte.1986.00360180245038
Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: