Jump to content

Talk:The New England Journal of Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Agre22 (talk | contribs) at 16:24, 15 January 2010 (Error in Superlative Status?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAcademic Journals Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

The NEJM is not a strict open access, so I removed the category. Some articles of the current issue are available for free, but the remainder of the issues back six months are by subscription only. Where does this fit with the Green/Gold methodolgy of OA ?Ericblazek 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Polk award

Is that some kind of joke, that the journal became popular/respectable after getting that award, as if it weren't already? Should that paragraph be removed? 67.117.130.181 15:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Superlative Status?

Why do articles for the NEJM and JAMA both indicate that the respective journals are the most read/circulated? Surely there needs to either be further clarification or better and more accurate citations for at least one of these entries. (Another example of Wikipedia as a sub-par source for information these days...). Tatumstevens (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support to eugenics

The Nazi eugenics had big support from this publication ; see this site: [Counter]. In fact, on this site, we can read:"The editorial record of the New England Journal in the early l930s was awful. Editorials lamented the supposed increase in the rate of American feeble-mindedness as dangerous and the economic burden of supporting the mentally feeble as "appalling". In 1934 The Journal's editor, Morris Fishbein, wrote that "Germany is perhaps the most progressive nation in restricting fecundity among the unfit", and argued that the "individual must give way to the greater good"."Agre22 (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)agre22[reply]