Peer-reviewed references.

[ROBBARISH@AOL.COM]

Dear List  members: 

I'm not  used to having the legitimacy of my academic publications 

questioned,  particularly when they are indexed on Entrez PubMed and are readily 

available  for public scrutiny. 

Since  there was a question about whether JABFP is a peer-reviewed  

publication, I submit the following description from the web site of the ABFP.  Pay 

particular attention to the last sentence of the  description: 

About The Journal of the American Board of Family  Practice   

The primary purpose of  the JABFP is to publish original papers pertaining to 

clinical investigations  and case reports and review articles pertinent to 

the specialty of Family  Practice. The articles published are intended to 

provide new and valuable  information or reference by the entire medical community. 

It is also intended to  serve as an important forum for the specialty of 

Family Practice and as a medium  for timely information concerning the activities 

of the American Board of Family  Practice.   

The Journal of the  American Board of Family Practice welcomes for editorial 

review  manuscripts that contribute to family practice as a clinical 

scientific  discipline. High priority is given to reports of clinically relevant 

studies  that have practical implications for improved patient care. Manuscripts are 

 considered in relation to the extent to which they represent original work,  

their significance to the advancement of family medicine, and their interest 

to  the practicing family physician. Manuscripts are submitted to an 

anonymous,  confidential peer-review process, which is usually completed within about 6 

 weeks. 

In-flight radiation: counseling patients about  risk 

J Am Board Fam Pract 1999 12: 195-199. 

Another  paper of mine appeared recently in the journal Obstetrics and 

Gynecology. I  submit that description as well: 

About  Obstetrics & Gynecology 

Obstetrics  & Gynecology is  the Official Publication of the _American 

College  of Obstetricians and Gynecologists_ (http://www.acog.org/)  (ACOG).  

Popularly  known as "The Green Journal," Obstetrics & Gynecology publishes  

original articles and research studies on: scientific advances, new medical and 

 surgical techniques, obstetric management, and clinical evaluation of drugs 

and  instruments.  

In  addition to its authoritative articles and studies, Obstetrics &  

Gynecology continues to feature the sections that obstetricians and  gynecologists 

around the world have come to depend upon: Case Reports, Current  Commentaries, 

Expert Clinical Series, Personal Perspectives, Editorials, and  Letters. 

Obstetrics & Gynecology's rigorous editorial policies ensure  that all articles are 

of the highest quality and that they are published while  current. These 

policies have made The Green Journal one of the most respected  and most consulted 

journals in the world.  

Obstetrics  & Gynecology is  the most complete and reliable source of 

information on current developments in  women's health care. Audience: Obstetricians, 

Gynecologists, General  Practitioners, Family Practitioners, 

Endocrinologists, Oncologists.  

In-Flight Radiation Exposure  During Pregnancy

Obstet. Gynecol., Jun 2004;  103: 1326 - 1330. 

For the benefit of those who  don't want to research these articles in their 

entirety, I concluded that the  risks of in-flight radiation are trivial 

during pregnancy, with the exception of  the first day of pregnancy when even a 

small dose of radiation might  cause spontaneous miscarriage. In the JABFP 

article I also conclude that the  risks to passengers during casual travel are 

trivial but may not be completely  negligible for crewmembers and other 

very-frequent flyers if LNT is valid. I  didn't say that it is valid, I only explained 

how that theory worked. There is  nothing sensational about either of these 

papers or, indeed, about any other  of my comments on this subject that can be 

found in the RADSAFE  archives and in the Ask the Expert section of the Health 

Physics Society  website.  

Regarding the statement by  Dr. Long that I was somehow employed by a union, 

I categorically deny that  unsupported allegation. My affiliation as Chief 

Physicist of the Cancer  Institute of St. Vincent's Catholic Medical Center in 

New York is clearly stated  on the JABFP paper. Additionally, I had no say in 

whether, following publication  of that paper, the editorial board of the JABFP 

rejected a letter to  the editor by Long, et. al. advancing hormesis as a 

likely result of in-flight  radiation exposure. The decision to reject that letter 

was made by the  journal, not by me. 

Robert J. Barish, Ph.D.,  CHP 

_robbarish@aol.com_ (mailto:robbarish@aol.com)