|LETTER TO EDITOR
|Year : 2016 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 103
Content is king: So also are the distribution channels?
Jatinder Bali1, Renu T Bali2
1 Department of Ophthalmology, Hindu Rao Hospital, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Medicine, Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital, New Delhi, India
|Date of Web Publication||9-Jun-2016|
55-D, Third Floor, DDA Flats, Kalidas Road, Gulabibagh, New Delhi - 110 007
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
|How to cite this article:|
Bali J, Bali RT. Content is king: So also are the distribution channels?. J Clin Ophthalmol Res 2016;4:103
Content is the king," Bill Gates had proclaimed famously in the 1990s.  Of course, this was said in the context of the future potential for earning on the internet. The use of the term goes back to Tilby's 1911 book where he had used it in the context of the crops grown in North America.  The situation in the field of generation of knowledge for medical education is probably no different today than the internet of the 1990s. The advent of technology has led to a proliferation in the number and the range of publications available to the practitioners in the field of medicine. Now your literature searches and plagiarism checks are semi-automated and conducted from the privacy and comfort of your homes. Everything is driven to your fingertip by the search engines and gopher sites. Today more information is available than people have time to read. The main problem is of the authenticity of the information available. If you have the knowledge to judge the correct from the incorrect, then you probably do not need that information for anything other than justification of your belief or opinion being correct. If you do not have the knowledge to do so, and you need to take action based on the information, then you need the quality of the source to be verified. The higher the cost of the decision, the more you are willing to pay for the assurance that it is correct. Tim Berners Lee may have given us the boon of keeping internet free, but the high-quality content is at a premium and rightly so.
I read the observations of the editor.  That "JCOR has been widely accepted as educative reading and reference material," is an established fact. Most of my residents and even colleagues are not on the mailing list of the JCOR, but routinely everyone has been reading the articles and discussing aspects from them in the ophthalmic circles in the northern states. We have started looking forward to new issues usually online - maybe because it reaches us faster in Delhi this way or maybe because for most of us there are no other means of accessing it. That it is always available is a bonus for those who find it difficult to store or find the stored physical copies. Maybe we are collectively becoming lazier. You can access it from the hospital or home or even while in the traffic. The site statistics were highly revealing. About 1 in 6 hits (16%) are from the USA, a country where few if any, copies would be sent by snail mail. It does appear that the national capital scores more hits than the financial capital. The overwhelming predominance of Apple devices was a little surprise. It appears that the ophthalmologists are, indeed, the true descendants of Adam and Eve. Or maybe the temptation is just too strong to resist. What needs to be understood here is that only about 24.6% of visitors use the mobile devices to visit the sites. That means the old warhorses, i.e., laptops and desktops are not dead, contrary to the popular belief. This should also make the content distributors go back to the drawing board and rethink their strategies as most of them were beginning to skew toward app-and mobile-based access policies. However, these are early trends yet and need more rigorous investigation.
What has been interesting and worthy of mention is that in a rather short span of time this journal has given high-quality articles that we have enjoyed reading. The quality of content is always the driving force, and it is this that keeps bringing readers back to leaf through the issues. Of course, content is the king, and this journal has consistently kept the content updated, made it interesting and brought in some new aspect to ruminate about. We have seen countless journals fail to evoke a sense of belonging and create a reading habit. Very few manage to be like the readers' digest. This journal has been able to create for itself a dedicated army of followers through the high level of discourse. What makes this effort unique is the fact that it is aimed at the comprehensive ophthalmologist and does not pander to niche subspecialty fare. This is difficult because it takes some very high skill and effort to get the mix right (and you can never tell that before the issue hits the stands or, should we say,…) the devices.
Kudos to you and we hope you keep it like this in the years to come.
| References|| |
Tilby WA. The English People Overseas: A History. 1 st
ed., Vol. 3. Great Britain: F. Griffiths; 1911. p. 320.
Nayak BK. The journey of clinical ophthalmology and research centre. J Clin Ophthalmol Res 2016;4:1-2.