This Article  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Daniel M. Albert, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113(8):984.

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

THE ARCHIVES will consider for publication material that is accurate, important, and new. The evaluation of the accuracy and importance of each article is made through peer review. We believe that the publication of research conducted according to the scientific method and evaluated by peer review is the only way to achieve responsible reporting of scientific observations. Authors benefit from the suggestions and advice of reviewers who are experts in the field. Readers can have confidence that the results reported have been scrutinized, questioned, and evaluated by knowledgeable, disinterested scientists and clinicians.

The criterion of newness is necessary because (1) ARCHIVES readers expect new material and (2) the ARCHIVES receives too many important manuscripts to devote space to material that is not new. Authors who present their data at public meetings may be quoted in the popular press. If they plan to submit their material to the ARCHIVES, they should . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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