To the Editor.
—The editorial by Dr Finkelstein1 in the November 1985 issue of the Archives warrants an afterthought.Certainly, the peer-reviewed scientific journals have a greater commitment to precision and proof in their medical communications than the publishers of the tabloids do.The author should realize, however, that medical journals, of any nature, have the responsibility to present not only scientific communications but also opinions relating to social and political problems in medical practice. Generally, the peer-reviewed journals fall short in this regard, in that they publish almost exclusively such social and political comment as derives from the academic sector of medicine; in other words, opinions from the private physician in such matters, for whatever reasons, are overlooked.The point is that, paradoxically, the editorial stringency and commitment to excellence of the peer-reviewed journals often act as a deterrent to independent opinion-giving from the private physician.The tabloids
Volpintesta EJ. Opinions From Private Physicians Overlooked in Peer-Reviewed Journals. Arch Ophthalmol. 1986;104(5):642–643. doi:10.1001/archopht.1986.01050170032010
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: