
To the Editor:— A review of "Current Problems in Allergy and Immunology" appeared inThe Journal, Oct. 31, page 1270. Traditionally, there is no appeal from the pronouncements of those who review books, but the reviewer of this book has taken a position so extreme that he is open to serious criticism. Excepting a handful of papers in the volume, which are devoted to basic research, he characterizes the work as "poor," "mediocre," and "faddish." In assessing the value of the work of a full 100 contributors, a reviewer might be expected to choose examples of material with which he could not agree, but there is something ridiculous about any critic, no matter how eminent, who condemns the work of so widely representative a group as being "likely to mislead the uninformed reader" and "recommended only to those who already possess a good, discriminative acquaintance with the field." In one
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
