In a message dated 11/1/2010 6:16:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jayvdb(a)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.