[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...

Tue Nov 2 03:49:14 UTC 2010

In a message dated 11/1/2010 6:16:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
jayvdb at gmail.com 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.