This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
Surveys show that many ophthalmologists now include non-peer-reviewed communications in their reading. These communications, both in newspaper (tabloid) and journal format, convey various types of information. Although I don't prefer the term throwaways for such publications, many physicians employ this designation.
We wish to remind the reader that such publications do not always distinguish scientific fact and informed judgment from extemporaneous clinical opinion and anecdotal observation. The blurring of this distinction is important; most readers expect the written word that appears in a scientific format to have been previously screened for merit. Most readers expect this screening to have been performed by scientific or clinical peers under the direction of a responsible editorial board. We expect this because, during the decade of our training as physicians and ophthalmologists, we have learned to trust such carefully reviewed publications as the New England Journal of Medicine, the Archives of Ophthalmology, and the
Finkelstein D. Oh, the Times! Tabloids and Other Non-Peer-Reviewed Publications. Arch Ophthalmol. 1985;103(11):1641–1642. doi:10.1001/archopht.1985.01050110035017
Monkeypox Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.