Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
conclusions and discussion
If you're pushing some other definition of conclusions, then I think this has devolved into arguing semantics. The important thing here is if what I provided was misleading.
Have you read an article and then compared it to it's abstract? Conclusions in articles reconcile results with experimental design and experimental limitations. One can have a result that suggests one thing, but when take the limitations of the experimental design into account the authors usually cede the point that the results are interesting but need further analysis. Abstracts are often very misleading.
Yes, good journalism is about providing reliable, relevant information - and I think the studies I included speak for themselves in this regard. Do you see one that isn't reliable/relevant?
See my other post for those that aren't reliable/relevant. I really have this feeling that since you pulled papers off PubMed you feel that they are top notch and that you couldn't possibly have overstated the scope of the cited papers. Experience has taught me that a google scholar search won't give me articles that have all that much relevance to my work regardless of what the title may say.
I didn't intend my example to represent bad news, but my article is different in just in the way I explained: extent of information provided, original organization/presentation, time to research, etc.
The extent of info doesn't mean anything if it is misused/misrepresented. You can't have it both ways Brandon, you can't cite a bunch of papers and then deflect criticism saying I'm not responsible for those citations.
RSS
RE: That sure cleared it up...not
[Y]ou provided results but you didn't provide conclusions because you didn't have access to them. Do you think you provided conclusions?
When I say conclusions I mean statements like "Epidural analgesia is a safe and effective method of relieving pain in labor." Results would include something like, "Inadequate pain relief during labor and during delivery were found in 5.3% and 19.7% of patients." The former draws conclusions from the latter.
If you're pushing some other definition of conclusions, then I think this has devolved into arguing semantics. The important thing here is if what I provided was misleading. (Although, I am interested why something labeled as "conclusions" in the abstract would be considered something other than conclusions...)
So in your mind journalism isn't about choosing reliable, relevant sources, but rather about displaying any info and linking a source.
Yes, good journalism is about providing reliable, relevant information - and I think the studies I included speak for themselves in this regard. Do you see one that isn't reliable/relevant?
How exactly is that better than your "bad news" example?
I didn't intend my example to represent bad news, but my article is different in just in the way I explained: extent of information provided, original organization/presentation, time to research, etc.
View Full Discussion