This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Medical Education  • Ophthalmology, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:1379-1380.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Physicians continue learning in many ways after they complete formal internships, residencies, and fellowships. These learning opportunities may be formal (attending continuing medical education [CME] courses and local, regional, and national meetings, reading peer-reviewed journals, grand rounds at a local medical school's department of ophthalmology). Less formal opportunities (dinner meetings sponsored by a pharmaceutical manufacturer, non–peer-reviewed journals, reading textbooks, listening to audiotapes in the car or watching videotapes, speaking with colleagues in hallways and at cocktail parties) also abound. All of these can be valuable learning opportunities, but each has its advantages and possible disadvantages, and the information gleaned from each source should be viewed with these potential limitations in mind. Of these different options, non–peer-reviewed "throwaway" publications offer articles that are timely, readable, and highly clinically relevant.¹

Peer-reviewed medical journals serve a valuable purpose that is universally recognized. They publish, in full detail, the study design, methods, and results . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Peter J. McDonnell, MD
From the Wilmer Eye Institute, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Md.