SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Clinical and Experimental Ocular Trauma and Infection / 2026 / Volume: 1 Issue: 1

Thoughts On Welcoming A New Journal

Ferenc Kuhn(University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Ophthalmology)
Pages
—
Publication Date
2019-04-23
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In today’s world of medicine, the birth of a new journal is not necessarily good news: the field is crowded, and the relatively new phenomenon where authors can have their work published by paying for the privilege, even if it’s claimed that a peer-review process takes place, is a dubious proposition.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In today’s world of medicine, the birth of a new journal is not necessarily good news: the field is crowded, and the relatively new phenomenon where authors can have their work published by paying for the privilege, even if it’s claimed that a peer-review process takes place, is a dubious proposition.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In today’s world of medicine, the birth of a new journal is not necessarily good news: the field is crowded, and the relatively new phenomenon where authors can have their work published by paying for the privilege, even if it’s claimed that a peer-review process takes place, is a dubious proposition.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In today’s world of medicine, the birth of a new journal is not necessarily good news: the field is crowded, and the relatively new phenomenon where authors can have their work published by paying for the privilege, even if it’s claimed that a peer-review process takes place, is a dubious proposition.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:ocular trauma · journal · editorial

Abstract

In today’s world of medicine, the birth of a new journal is not necessarily good news: the field is crowded, and the relatively new phenomenon where authors can have their work published by paying for the privilege, even if it’s claimed that a peer-review process takes place, is a dubious proposition.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kuhn, F. (2019). Thoughts On Welcoming A New Journal. Clinical and Experimental Ocular Trauma and Infection, Volume: 1 Issue: 1. https://ajindex.com/articles/1582580

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Cleary PE, Ryan SJ. Vitrectomy in penetrating eye injury. Results of a controlled trial of vitrectomy in an experimental posterior penetrating eye injury in the rhesus monkey. Arch Ophthalmol. 1981;99(2):287-292.
  2. Winthrop SR, Cleary PE, Minckler DS, Ryan SJ. Penetrating eye injuries: a histopathological review. Br J Ophthalmol. 1980;64(11):809-817.
  3. Cleary PE, Ryan SJ. Method of production and natural history of experimental posterior penetrating eyeinjury in the rhesus monkey. Am J Ophthalmol. 1979;88(2):212-220.
  4. Sebag J. Anomalous posterior vitreous detachment: a unifying concept in vitreo-retinal disease. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004;242(8):690-698.
  5. Coleman DJ. Early vitrectomy in the management of the severely traumatized eye. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982;93(5):543-551.
  6. Ferreira N1, Monteiro S, Meireles A, Kuhn F. Outcome of vitrectomy and chorioretinectomy in perforating eye injuries. Ophthalmic Res. 2015;53(4):200-206.
  7. Dalma-Weiszhausz J, Quiroz-Mercado H, Morales-Cantón V et al. Vitrectomy for ocular trauma: a question of timing? Eur J Ophthalmol. 1996;6(4):460-463.
  8. Kuhn F, Gini G. Ten years after. are findings of the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study still relevant today? Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243(12):11971199.
  9. Kuhn F, Gini G. Ten years after. are findings of the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study still relevant today? Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243(12):11971199.