The public dissemination of medical research: Problems and solutions

Journal of Health Communication

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 3-16

  Wilkes, Michael S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HEALTH EDUCATION; INFORMATION SERVICE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PEER REVIEW; RESEARCH;

HEALTH EDUCATION; INFORMATION SERVICES; PEER REVIEW, HEALTH CARE; PUBLIC SECTOR; RESEARCH;

EID: 0030621572     PISSN: 10810730     EISSN: 10870415     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/108107397127888     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Altman, L. (1996a). The Ingelfinger Rule, embargoes and journal peer review—Part 1. Lancet, 347, 1382–1386.
2. Altman, L. (1996b). The Ingelfinger Rule, embargoes and journal peer review—Part 2. Lancet, 347, 1459–1463.
3. Altman, L. K. (1988, January 28). Medical guardians: Aspirin report illustrates the control of New England Journal on data flow. New York Times.
4. Altman, L. K., & Reiman, R. A. (1989, May). Paper presented at the conference on “The relationship between scientific journals and the lay press,” sponsored by the American Medical Association, Chicago.
5. Bronson, G. (1979). Responsibility for the information media. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 40, 1172–1177.
6. DeVita, V. (1989, May). Paper presented at the conference on “The relationship between scientific journals and the lay press,” sponsored by the American Medical Association, Chicago.
7. DeVries, W. C. (1988). The physician, the media, and the “spectacular” case. Journal of the American Medical Association, 259, 886–890.
8. Fulginiti, V. A., Corrigan, J. J., Allen, H. D., (1990, May). Comparative review before and after acceptance of a manuscript. Paper presented at the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Chicago.
9. Garfunkel, J. M., Ulshen, M. H., Hamrick, H. J., & Lawson, E. E. (1990). Problems identified by secondary review of accepted manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1369–1371.
10. Ingelfinger, F. J. (1977). Shattuck Lecture—The general medical journal: For readers or repositories? New England Journal of Medicine, 296, 1258–1264.
11. The Ingelfinger Rule: Does it strangle the flow of medical news? (1980, March 3). Time, p. 74.
12. Johnson, I. S. (1980). Gene cloning by press conference. New England Journal of Medicine, 303, 531.
13. Knoll, E. (1990). The communication of scientists and journal peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1330–1332.
14. Kolata, G. (1990). News of Advance in AIDS treatment delayed 5 months. New York Times, p. A1.
15. Mannisto, M. (1980). Public press focuses on advances in medical research/ technology. Journal of the American Hospital Association, 54 65–68.
16. Nelkin, D. (1985). Managing biomedical news. Social Res, 52, 625–646.
17. The news media and the question of prior publication. (1979). Annals of Internal Medicine, 91, 919–920.
18. Reiser, S. J., Dyck, S. J., & Curran, W. J. (Eds.) (1977). Ethics in medicine: Historical perspectives and contemporary concerns. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Relman, A. S. (1980). News reports of medical meetings: How reliable are abstracts? New England Journal of Medicine, 303, 277–278.
20. Relman, A. S. (1981). The Ingelfinger Rule. New England Journal of Medicine, 305, 824–826.
21. Relman, A. S. (1984). Talking to reporters at medical meetings. Clinical Research, 32 119–120.
22. Relman, A. S. (1988a). More on the Ingelfinger Rule. New England Journal of Medicine, 318, 1125–1126.
23. Relman, A. S. (1988b). Our readers vote for the news embargo. New England Journal of Medicine, 318, 1680.
24. Relman, A. S. (1988c). Reporting the aspirin study: The journal and the media. New England Journal of Medicine, 318, 918–920.
25. Rennie, D., Knoll, E., & Flanagin, A. (1989). The International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. Journal of the American Medical Association, 261, 749.
26. Robinson-Hayes, E. (1989). Physicians and journalists. Journal of the American Medical Association, 261, 1280.
27. Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross–cultural approach. New York: Free Press.
28. Scott, J. (1990, February 26). Los Angeles Times, p. A24
29. Smith, R. (1984). Medicine and the media. British Medical Journal, 289, 1529.
30. Steinbrook, R. (1986, October 25). Journals struggle to keep pace. Los Angeles Times, p. xx.
31. Thompson, L. (1988, October 19). NIH delays human genome experiment: Some data was withheld from review panel. Washington Post, p. xx.
32. Wilkes, M. S., & Kravitz, R. L. (1992). Medical researchers and the media: Attitudes toward public dissemination of research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 268, 999–1003.
33. Wilkes, M. S., & Kravitz, R. L. (1995). Policies, practices, and attitudes of North American medical journal editors. JGIM, 10, 443–450.
34. Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure, and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9, 66.