Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: That sure cleared it up...not
without giving the reader any reason to trust your references
My intent was not to have them trust me. My intent was to organize and present the information I found so others could read the articles themselves, where interested, and then decide if they trust the researchers.
the local news provides references too, usually from PubMed or someother journal. Although, come to think of it, they usually describe the study.
That's not my experience. Recently, for example, I put up a news post linking to an article discussing two studies on oral contraception that have been in the news recently. I discussed a little about the article and provided a link to it - and it took me about 2 minutes. If you go to the article, you'll find a little more information on the studies themselves, some of the possible limitations, and even a couple of references (which is unusual for most news services). There aren't links to the studies, though, so someone wanting to know more about the issue would need to search them out on their own. This is what the news typically does. It provides their interpretation of the method and results of a study, quotes some researchers, and tries to make it interesting.
If I were to write an article on the "pros and cons of oral contraceptives: recent research," I'd include a link to the involved studies, as well as about 10 others on the subject - along with summarized results/conclusions for each - organized by year. As opposed to the news post above, this would take quite a few hours. It wouldn't much detail on the individual studies (which the reader could get straight from the horses mouth, anyway), but it would give a different sort of context - the context of other studies on the subject published over time. As I said before, it's not an academic journal publication - but it would keep the next person who came along from having to repeat the searching I did.
with out an abstract/summary of the experimental goals the results are meaningless
Right. So read the abstract/summary of the experimental goals. I gave you a link, you don't even have to look it up. ;)
you have vouched for them, and I don't think obstetrics is exactly your field of expertise
I haven't vouched for them because it's not my field of expertise.
Maybe a Dr. could get away with out providing context
A doctor could get away with providing context outside of what is in the linked articles/abstracts.
do you know what the experimental goals/methods of your references
I know what I could access for free. How much I know really is of no consequence here, though. I'm just providing the research of others in an organized fashion.
You have given the reader no reason to suspect that your references are valid at all.
Good. I hope they'll take the references on their own merit, not mine.
RSS
RE: That sure cleared it up...not
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then, because as you put it, your target audience is of higher mental capacity, and I, a member of said group, find the article lacking an essential/critical element in it's composition. I agree that you put a lot of time/effort into researching your references, all the more reason for you to have commented on the nature of the experiments and the intended goals/conclusions of the researchers. What you have done is provided some references, categorized them, and displayed results without giving the reader any reason to trust your references. That's my point, you did yourself a disservice as well as the reader. This is an issue of polishing a summary.
The average Joe isn't interested in context or experimental design; he is completely satisfied with hearing (and likely accepting) "studies show epidurals can be dangerous" on his local news.
And you have done pretty much what most news organizations do, you present some results without context for people to interrupt them. And yes the local news provides references too, usually from PubMed or someother journal. Although, come to think of it, they usually describe the study.
My article is not a peer-reviewed publication
No, but someone reviewed it to be posted on Omninerd and that someone obviously thought well Brandon must know what he is talking about and since he provided references I don't need to question validity. Again, I'm not saying that the chosen articles are bad, but merely questioning the decision not to include a summary of the experiments so as to allow others to better weigh the facts.
..serves its purpose: to provide those like me who want to know more with a convenient bridge from the everyday Google world to the academic world.
But to draw any reasonable conclusions from your article without said summaries, the reader must check each of the sources him or herself. In essence you provided us with a list of your google scholar search results...albeit a little more tabular. But at least google scholar provides an abstract by which one can access the validity before clicking on the reference.
The reader, such as yourself, looking for more context can move to the next step up: reading the cited studies' abstracts.
This sums up my entire critique, with out an abstract/summary of the experimental goals the results are meaningless. They don't mean a thing if I don't know how/why they were obtained. Context is needed in everything be they peer-reviewed or not. You are passing along results without giving anyone the slightest idea of how they were obtained...you have vouched for them, and I don't think obstetrics is exactly your field of expertise. Maybe a Dr. could get away with out providing context, though he shouldn't, but why should you? Because you searched around for a couple of hours?
My question to you Brandon, is do you know what the experimental goals/methods of your references, or did you pull numbers from an abstract. You have given the reader no reason to suspect that your references are valid at all.
View Full Discussion