Most medical journals do not have a mechanism for producing well-written evidence-based medicine on a measured monthly basis. Some published articles are poorly written and some have few usable clinical tidbits. The temperament of different editors and editorial boards may vary from seeking sensational content that may be risky and shortly abandoned to publishing only methodical proven science. In fact, some view journals as a place to deposit only vetted and established work for posterity. The AJO, as do many journals, occasionally publishes controversial or novel topics and may provide an editorial to challenge the content, or offers readers the opportunity to challenge content through the correspondence section. In reality, most peer-reviewed journals seek more trust than debate and see…

Further information:

Article source

Related posts:

1. APA Modifies DSM Naming Convention To Reflect Publication Changes
2. RCGP policy debate: From sick notes to fit notes
3. The British Journal of Medical Practitioners has decided to adopt a “Continuous Publication” publishing model
4. Masters theses from a university medical college: Publication in indexed scientific journals
5. Eurocan Plus Report: Feasibility Study for Coordination of National Cancer Research Activities