DAVID H. SPODICK, M.D.
This content is PDF only. Please click on the PDF icon to access.
To the editor: Although I agree with Dr. Huth's reservation, Dr. Harry Abram (Ann Intern Med 77:153-154, 1972) has courageously tackled one of many ethical considerations for manuscript reviewers. To judge whether other persons' work will see the light of day should involve the most unwavering impartiality allotment of sufficient time for careful reading and reference, and speediest report consistent with fair judicial process. Unfortunately, some or all such criteria (indeed, such moral obligations), particularly the last, are not always assumed by journal reviewers.
An adverse judgment, particularly, from the ethical reviewer calls for the highest standards, the most painstaking
DAVID H. SPODICK. Manuscript Reviewers. Ann Intern Med. 1972;77:663. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-77-4-663_1
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 1972;77(4):663.
Copyright © 2017 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use