Re: Medical journals are dead. Long live medical journals

From: Marvin <physchem_at_EARTHLINK.NET>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:02:36 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Till <till_at_OCI.UTORONTO.CA>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: Medical journals are dead. Long live medical journals

> My thanks to my colleague Peter Singer for his provocative article in
> CMAJ, and for pointing me toward this forum.
> It's still far from clear (at least, to me!) why members of the physics
> research community seem, in general, to be more comfortable with eprints
> than are (as yet?) many members of the biomedical research community.

One difference may be the way society reacts to new information in the two
fields. There can be a much more important negative effect of
misinformation in medicine than in physics. Quack medicine feeds on what is
published in reputable medical journals, in addition to misinformation
created by the quacks. This is true also for what physical scientists
publish, but to a much smaller extent. Claims for perpetual motion
machines and magnets on gas lines in car don't hurt the unknowing layman as
much as do claims for magic cures for serious diseases.
Received on Mon Jan 24 2000 - 19:17:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:45:42 GMT