Let's have our readers vote. On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:49 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> In a message dated 11/1/2010 6:16:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > > The PLOS Medicine article is based on a dataset of 78 interventional > > studies, 81 observational studies, and only 47 scientific reviews. > > Also, they do not dissect the data based on the reputability of the > > publishing venue. > > > > We should only use peer-reviewed research published in reputable > > journals, which eliminates vast quantities of 'research'. > > > > This phrase of yours "reputability of the publishing venue" sounds like the > reputation of the periodical in which the research is published. > But what we're discussing in this thread, or sub-thread is who is paying > for the research, not the venue in which it's being published. > Am I mis understanding your point? > > Also whether or not some other article does or does not mention who paid > for the research, I don't find germane to whether or not we should or > should > not do it. > Even if you're right about what that other group is doing, we don't have to > do exactly what someone else is doing. > > Our main point, IMHO, should be, what's the most reader-centric position to > take. > Not what's the most producer-centric position. > _______________________________________________ > 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
