[Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...

[Andreas Kolbe]

> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Monday, 8 November, 2010, 0:22
> On 7 November 2010 12:26, David
> Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > That naming funding sources is in fact *standard in
> the field* is,
> > however, something that strongly suggests we should
> not deliberately
> > withhold such information from the reader.
> 
> Err we don't. They are free to consult the source.
> 
> However the field in question has long established
> standards when it
> comes to citation.
> 
> So for example when "Anti-HIV-1 activity of salivary MUC5B
> and MUC7
> mucins from HIV patients with different CD4 counts" cites
> "Interaction
> of HIV-1 and human salivary mucin" they do so in the form
> of:
> 
> "Bergey EJ, Cho MI, Blumberg BM, Hammarskjold ML, Rekosh D,
> Epstein
> LG, Levine MJ. Interaction of HIV-1 and human salivary
> mucins. J
> Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1994;7:995–1002."
> 
> And do not mention it's funding source
> 
> (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2967540/).


This is a valid argument.

However, mentioning the funding source is not unheard of in medical 
citations. See the first example given here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=citmed&part=A32352#A32755

Funding is consistently included on abstract pages. Examples:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013614
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010548

Here, funding is included along with the publication data. It is a standard 
format.

Where references are hyperlinked, as in your counterexample, professionals 
can view the article. Our readers cannot, unless they have access to the
relevant academic database.

A.