[AAHM_Clio_Project] medical history is a serious subject of study

Sun Jul 10 19:27:49 EDT 2016

Dear All:
I agree with comments made by Joel and David, but here is something from a history enthusiast with no formal training in history. All my work has been published in the type of journals that offend Alessandra -- too much about people, their work, events, dates etc, but insufficient historical scholarship. I think the problem reverts back to clinician historian versus medical historian - the fields of study and interest appear to have moved so far away that unless there is collaboration in the writing process between individuals from the two groups - the work will be deficient in medicine or else in history.
The medical journals Alessandra probably refers to cater to their professional association and membership - usually practicing physicians. Their concept of history is different from that of medical historians. The typical article published in JHMAS, BHM, or Medical History may be of little interest to these clinicians. My submissions to the medical history journals listed above are usually met with the 'why are you wasting our valuable time with this #*@%,' put in more polite terms.
I do not think there is any short term solution to the problem, other than educating medical students, physicians, and editors about the manner in which medical historians examine and write about their work. I do not believe editors of clinical journals will take kindly to the suggestion of having a medical historian review submissions, unless the idea comes from someone they already know and respect. My own experience with such reviews [by medical historians] has been terrible. The chief editor of ANESTHESIOLOGY [the top journal in my specialty] recently decided to have history articles reviewed by a medical historian. Ten submissions from me, in a row, were rejected - no real explanations. I now specifically indicate in my 'request for reviewer' that medical historians without a clinical background specifically NOT be asked to review my submission. Most members of the Clio Group would be welcome as reviewers, but my guess is that straight PhDs would have a very hard time supporting the type of material I write about.
In recent months I have begun collaborating with historians for all submissions - I write my part and ask the historian to supplement it with necessary context. The historian is offered authorship, or acknowledgment, according to his/her preference. The end results are promising and the work is of a much better quality in terms of scholarship and has the potential to impress editors and reviewers from both backgrounds with the necessary mix of medicine and history. I believe this is what we all want anyway.
Just my thoughts,
Sukumar Desai, M.D.
Amateur History Enthusiast
________________________________
From: AAHM_Clio_Project [aahm_clio_project-bounces at histmed.org] on behalf of Jacalyn M Duffin [duffinj at queensu.ca]
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 2:21 PM
To: aahm_clio_project at histmed.org
Subject: [AAHM_Clio_Project] medical history is a serious subject of study

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

The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://histmed.org/pipermail/aahm_clio_project_histmed.org/attachments/20160710/13ee6536/attachment.html>