[AAHM_Clio_Project] medical history is a serious subject of study

[Jones, David Shumway]

I think the answer varies from journal to journal, and over time within a journal.

Many speciality medical journals have no connection to the field of academic history of medicine and don’t seek review by historians.  I don’t know if this is a question of not knowing we exist or not thinking that our expertise is relevant for their audience.  If an editor thinks a piece is interesting and might interested the journal’s readers, it can get published.  I have occasionally submitted a scathing review, only to see the journal publish the piece anyway on the grounds that my concerns were ones that historians might care about, but not physicians.

Some US journals do seek review by historians have published good historical work.  AJPH has the largest track record, but Annals of Internal Medicine has published many over the years, and NEJM has begun to more recently (after publishing several in the 1990s that historians would not have endorsed).  Lancet has published some good history, I think based on internal editorial review, not peer review.

To be fair, some physicians would say “why do serious history periodicals permit the publication of articles of history of medicine that have no serious review by physicians”?  The two situations are not symmetrical, but there are parallels.  Medical / scientific errors, sometimes serious ones, get made by historians and history journals, simply because they do not know the science and do not seek review.

A hall of shame sounds like great fun, but it might not be appreciated.  Letters to the editor might be useful; I wrote one to NEJM in 1997 in response to an article<http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199702203360812> they published that attempted a retrospective diagnosis of the 1485-1551 outbreak of English sweating sickness, but never got a response.  Better history training in medical schools and residency would help.

But I think the best approach is for us to increase our submission of high-quality history to medical journals, as an act of professional service. This can be frustrating and seemingly low yield at times, but it might help to demonstrate the kinds of questions and methods that trained historians consider interesting and worthwhile.  Annals (via Deborah Cotton) and NEJM (via Debbie Malina) are both actively interested, and there are countless other journals that might have interested editors.

David.


David S. Jones, M.D., Ph.D.
A. Bernard Ackerman Professor of the Culture of Medicine
Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the Faculty of Medicine
Harvard University


On Jul 10, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Jacalyn M Duffin <duffinj at queensu.ca<mailto:duffinj at queensu.ca>> wrote:

Dear All

An interesting question comes from Alessandra Foscati a colleague in Italy…below.

With her permission I forward it to you all.

I sent a reply with some of my thoughts for why this happens in medical publishing.
.
But it would be interesting to hear what others have to say ….
Or if you too have had the peculiar experience of having your brilliant, pathbreaking work ignored.

And more importantly for our Clio Initiative…what can we do about it?

A hall of shame for offending journals?
A standard letter to editor when we notice it?
More real history in medical education and residency?

Explanations for Alessandra — and all thoughts welcome!
Please copy Alessandra in your replies.

Happy summer!

Jackie


From:    alessandra foscati <alessandra.foscati at GMAIL.COM<mailto:alessandra.foscati at GMAIL.COM>>
Subject: medical history is a serious subject of study

Dear  all,

a little question. Why do serious medical  periodicals, with respectable impact factors and peer review, often permit the publication of articles of history of medicine that are so naive (to use an euphemistic expression)? Is there no serious peer review by historians in medical periodicals?

It seems not.

I think it is damaging and insulting to serious scholars of medical history.

As I see it, physicians often use history at the opening of an article starting with a picture and then leap immediately to conclusions connected to current medical knowledge. Or they start with the tale of a miracle, using a casual source without dating it or using any philological interpretations or providing any references,  and so on.

I have just read a very recent example in Journal of Vascular Surgery.

Even if the periodical is dedicated to the medicine, I think that articles and parts of articles regarding medical history deserve to be seriously written and controlled.

Sorry for my outburst.

Alessandra

Alessandra

_______________________________________________
AAHM_Clio_Project mailing list
AAHM_Clio_Project at histmed.org<mailto:AAHM_Clio_Project at histmed.org>
http://histmed.org/mailman/listinfo/aahm_clio_project_histmed.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://histmed.org/pipermail/aahm_clio_project_histmed.org/attachments/20160710/f46c5746/attachment-0001.html>