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

[David Goodman]

Most journals do make their abstracts visible, so if funding is
included there, one can see it without logging in.

But there are two  serious ethical problems, one of them is what
people who are funded by a commercial or POV entity do incorrectly
because of that funding.
The worse is the concealment of one's funding in order to avoid
suspicion of the bias.

Everything that is done incorrectly because of funding is also done by
those who have an intellectual  or emotional stake in the outcome


On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:37 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 November 2010 05:54, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>
> It's extremely uncommon though as any random perusal of pubmed will show.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Sure but not for references. The references in your examples do not
> include funding sources.
>
>> 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.
>
> We have a long standing principle that we don't worry about things
> like paywalls when it comes to sources. Eh your averaged paywalled
> journal is highly assessable compared to some of the stuff I've cited
> over the years.
>
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG