This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Edward J. Volpintesta, MD
Bethel, Conn

Arch Ophthalmol. 1986;104(5):642-643.

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

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 . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?