Still, it is quite well known that manufacture funded studies come up more often than not with entirely different results than if they are not funded by the manufacture.
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:08 PM, John Vandenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:02 AM, David Goodman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > But then it should also be said what studies were NOT funded by the > > manufacturer, and we do not know that,m because most journals do not > > specify--and almost none specified in the past. > > Following on from David, the funding should not matter. > > We should not be using studies which have not been peer-reviewed. > > We should be very wary of studies that have been peer-reviewed by > journals with a history of allowing garbage through. > > We should be careful with new studies even when published in respected > journals, until the citation count rises to the point that we feel > comfortable that the study has been accepted by the academic > community. > > -- > John Vandenberg > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
