[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
August 1995

Ophthalmologists in the 'News'-Reply

Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113(8):968-969. doi:10.1001/archopht.1995.01100080018005

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


In reply  Mr Croes states that it is the "policy of several peer-reviewed ophthalmic journals to preclude the publication of papers previously reported in medical newspapers." The term reported requires clarification. A press "report" following an oral presentation at a medical meeting does not necessarily preclude publication of the material in the Archives. At issue is whether the "report" is substantive. The Archives policy is clearly stated in its Instructions for Authors:A complete manuscript submitted following oral presentation that results in the publication of substantive information elsewhere, including magazines or "tabloids," may be deemed ineligible for publication in the Archives.... Press reports of the meeting should not be amplified by additional data or copies of tables and illustrations.Mr Croes further implies that the Archives does not apply its rules equitably. We do not have less stringent rules for "major" authors. If, as Mr Croes states, "authors have the

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview