I forgot the link http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/293/5538/2187a SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING: Peer Review and Quality: A Dubious Connection? Martin Enserink BARCELONA, SPAIN--Despite its flaws, letting scientists anonymously judge each other's work is widely considered the "least bad way" to weed out weak manuscripts or research proposals and improve promising ones. But that common wisdom was questioned last weekend at a meeting attended by hundreds of editors of medical journals and academics. In a meta-analysis that surprised many--and that some doubt--researchers found little evidence that peer review actually improves the quality of research papers. On 3/8/07, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know that I care what the number is. It's too high no matter what it > is. That said, The Lancet is a peer-reviewd journal so there has to be some > sort of argument to be made for the methodology. I do not know what the > methodology is, or whether the number is accurate, but if you think that > their review protocols are invalid, welp let's hope you don't visit the > doctor much. Unless you think that it's some sort of story they made up in > this one instance. A new variation on "you're only saying that because you > hate America/George Bush/Baby Jesus" I guess. > > >Getting a very accurate count, akin to the U.S. military count, is virtually > >impossible. But getting a decent count- within an order of magnitude, say, > >should be fairly simple. Despite the dangers and the limitations, reporters > >seem to have done a pretty good job of reporting specific incidents of > >violence around Iraq, as the daily rattle of bombings, shootings, and > >discoveries of dead bodies would suggest. > > > >Given that reporting, you could go back and calculate an average daily total > >for deaths and then arrive at a number of total deaths over a specific > >period. It wouldn't be very accurate- nothing more than an estimate, really, > >but it would certainly be accurate within an order of magnitude. Let's > >assume that 50 civilians a day died, on average, during that time period. > >That comes out to around the 50,000 number that various groups have > >estimated. Does anyone really believe that daily toll is significantly > >higher than 50? Say 100, or 200, or even 300? Many of us have been following > >the war since the beginning, and I for one have never gotten a sense that > >100 or more people were dying everyday. Yesterday, for example, more than > >100 people were killed in suicide attacks, and it was a very prominent story > >because of the body count. If there were body counts like that everyday, the > >stories on the news would be totally different than what we see. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Deploy Web Applications Quickly across the enterprise with ColdFusion MX7 & Flex 2. Free Trial http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/ Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:229755 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
