This Article  • References  • 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  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Francis Heed Adler, M.D.

AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1951;45(4):365-366.

	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 most difficult task of the Editorial Board of a scientific periodical is the rejection of those manuscripts which are judged unsuitable for publication. Suitability is a rather vague characterization, based on many different and often diverse qualities. During the last two years one reason for rejection has occurred more frequently than any other. More than two thirds of the rejected manuscripts were returned to their authors because of failure to provide adequate controls from which the reader could judge for himself whether the author's conclusions merit acceptance.

It seems strange that this should be so, in view of the fact that most contributors to our journals have had excellent scientific training. However, ophthalmologists are not alone in failing to provide adequate controls in their papers. Ross¹ has recently called attention to the fact that 45 per cent of articles published by a group of leading medical periodicals in . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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