Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: That sure cleared it up...not
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
No you provided results but you didn't provide conclusions because you didn't have access to them. You only had access to the abstract and that may or may not contain all of the results. My whole beed was that there was no summary of the conclusions of these studies since the conclusion of an article seeks to resolve experimental design and results. Do you think you provided conclusions?
Right. So read the abstract/summary of the experimental goals. I gave you a link, you don't even have to look it up. ;)
The abstracts you read didn't give a summary of the experimental goals, hence my critique. Depending on the journal, abstracts can be extremely limited. Abstract was a poor word choice in that context, I should have clarified.
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.
So in your mind journalism isn't about choosing reliable, relevant sources, but rather about displaying any info and linking a source. How exactly is that better than your "bad news" example? If you think there is no responsibility on your part to provide accurate, relevant (and this is where experimental design is key) sources than you have no business posting anywhere reputable.
RSS
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.
View Full Discussion