Abstract In Reply. —Medical news tabloids—or "throwaway journals" or specialty magazines—have existed in an uneasy parallel realm with peer-reviewed scientific journals for some time. Readership studies indicate that these controlled-circulation publications are received and read (or at least scanned) by large numbers of physicians. However, caution has been urged in evaluating original scientific information presented in the tabloids on the grounds that these publications frequently obscure the distinction between extemporaneous clinical observation and proved scientific fact.1,2 The unreliability, incompleteness, and inaccuracy of reporting by the tabloids thus becomes a crucial issue in evaluating the contribution of these publications to the medical community, as indicated by Mr Croes' correspondence. The burgeoning number of these publications in the last five years, which has threatened the economic survival of many peer-reviewed journals by diverting finite advertising revenue in a shrinking marketplace, has intensified the debate surrounding the tabloids' claim to legitimacy.Tabloids and References 1. Finkelstein D: Oh, the Times! Tabloids and other non-peer-reviewed publications . Arch Ophthalmol 1985;103:1641-1642.Crossref 2. Soffer A: Free medical publications or scientific medical journals? Chest 1982;81:397-398.Crossref 3. Correction of factual error: Amicar manufacturing origin . Ophthalmology Times , (Oct 1) , 1984.
Archives of Ophthalmology – American Medical Association
Published: Aug 1, 1986