On 12/14/05, Jakob Voss <jakob.voss(a)nichtich.de> wrote:
As I just wrote in my weblog
http://wm.sieheauch.de/ the study is
relatively poor. Good for Wikipedia but the sample is quite small and
it's vague how the articles were choosen. I bet nature would not have
accepted the research as a submited paper.
Indeed. The ct' study last year seemed superior to me (and less
head-to-head). I hope the publishing world starts to take accuracy
and accountability more seriously, and to both design better studies
in this vein, and to improve their standards for revisioning and
quality checking.
In my view, precious few modern reference works -- including those
pertaining to issues of great world importance -- take themselves or
their accuracy seriously enough. I wonder what the review process at
Jane's is like...
--
++SJ