> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was > Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing... > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, 8 November, 2010, 0:22 > On 7 November 2010 12:26, David > Gerard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > That naming funding sources is in fact *standard in > the field* is, > > however, something that strongly suggests we should > not deliberately > > withhold such information from the reader. > > Err we don't. They are free to consult the source. > > However the field in question has long established > standards when it > comes to citation. > > So for example when "Anti-HIV-1 activity of salivary MUC5B > and MUC7 > mucins from HIV patients with different CD4 counts" cites > "Interaction > of HIV-1 and human salivary mucin" they do so in the form > of: > > "Bergey EJ, Cho MI, Blumberg BM, Hammarskjold ML, Rekosh D, > Epstein > LG, Levine MJ. Interaction of HIV-1 and human salivary > mucins. J > Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1994;7:995–1002." > > And do not mention it's funding source > > (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2967540/).
This is a valid argument. However, mentioning the funding source is not unheard of in medical citations. See the first example given here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=citmed&part=A32352#A32755 Funding is consistently included on abstract pages. Examples: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013614 http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010548 Here, funding is included along with the publication data. It is a standard format. Where references are hyperlinked, as in your counterexample, professionals can view the article. Our readers cannot, unless they have access to the relevant academic database. A. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
