RE: That sure cleared it up...not

I know the references are listed, I just object to displaying results without at least a sentence or two discussing the research methods of the study. I was merely offering critique. Would it have been so hard to add in the two or three sentences for each study to explain how the samples were gathered? And would it not provide the depth necessary to gage the weight of the results?l I understand that you put considerable effort into googling some research papers and I assume reading them, but it becomes difficult for me to rely on said results when there is no discussion of experimental method. For all I know you merely took the first 10 references that appeared on google scholar and then picked out the results and compiled them. Your right that I could go and search myself, but then what exactly would be the point of your paper? Other than to fact check it for you.

Again, please don't take offense, but the reason I replied in the first place is because I think what you have compiled here does a great disservice to your average layman looking for information. Not everyone on the web is capable/willing to read a scientific journal article and understand the results. For this reason, I assume, you sought to compile some literature and provide it as reference for others. But since you in no way discussed the experimental designs of the papers or even you criteria for accepting said results you have only really provided a tool that could be misused by many. Many could read your paper and assume that you knew what you were talking about when you compiled the literature and providing references isn't going to do anything for average joe, because average joe probably isn't going to be able to understand everything in said references. So for you not to even acknowledge experimental design raises a huge red flag to someone who does read scientific journals on a daily basis. I'm not trying to say that one of these studies is wrong, I don't know that having not checked references, but what I am saying is that if you don't at least give a synopsis of the goals of said study and the experimental design I have no way of knowing if the researchers were seeking to establish correlation, or if they were merely reviewing records to present trends that should be further studied. And that is a HUGE difference.

Do you understand my point about how merely citing something doesn't excuse one from placing the information into context? By citing you can mislead far worse. From a professional standpoint (and I am far more sensitive to this stuff because I am held to such standards myself) this is a big academic no-no.

-brad