 |
|
The Readers Speak
Arch Fam Med. 1998;7:515.
THANKS TO THOSE READERS who are completing our continuing medical education (CME) cards, we have received many comments on the Archives of Family Medicine. I thought the other readers may be interested in some of the comments.
- This is great that you are doing this.
- Excellent articles—well written.
- Articles are interesting, concise, and relevant.
- First useful AMA venture for a long time.
- Practical.
- I appreciate the no-cost CME.
- Excellent!
- Very useful.
- Very interesting.
- Up-to-date clinical value to my practice.
- An excellent mix of pertinent topics.
- A very helpful journal.
- One of the more informative of recent CME journal efforts.
- This is the first time I did this and I learned tons. It was great.
As the editor, I particularly enjoyed the following:
- Your varicella vaccine paper was a much fairer presentation of both sides of the debate than the most recent JAMA paper/editorial.
- Flashlight-like, brief medical information, refreshing, updating.
- I have a grandson who is a medical student and would appreciate receiving your publication.
- It stimulated the brain.
- I appreciate the editorial comments (in boxes).
- Sorry, got torn by the vacuum cleaner!
The overwhelming majority of the comments were positive, but there were others that were less positive:
- A bit too didactic for me.
- The articles are not practical enough and have excessive length for the amount of core information presented.
- We need more population-based studies that reflect our broader reality.
- Terrible, turgid, verbose, repetitious prose. Don't you edit these manuscripts?
- Needs more rigorous science.
We appreciate the comments and feedback and, as always, will strive to bring you clinically practical, academically sound articles as well as the CME!
Marjorie A. Bowman, MD, MPA
Editor
|
