Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 There are strong economic interests to cheat about medical research, so we should be extremely fair, transparent and informative about those articles. Mentioning the funding source of any research is the building base of critical trust.[1] [1]: critical trust is the kind of trust one obtains after having access to all the necessary data to make a judgment in complete liberty of thought. On 08/11/2010 02:54, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing... To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 8 November, 2010, 0:22 On 7 November 2010 12:26, David Gerard dger...@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=citmedpart=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. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM2GTYAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LaQEIAOC+EhMgBURRQLynNGfim/Hi hWjY2K00jNTFwzJCvULXMz922PEOGQMSHWACI5McJXHn0QbRm5eifY3VhZG6L4la b1ZWeXagbwp9Of2JagXA7Nb9ilWga4MbEg0hNoyuk1FsTAFBV4HVSSn3/gnZOM/Y JAvHLepDH5b7xeQrAGA//4gYzDxSMZKIKFjtERhGg0Ghb8eauMO6oItk+pNyvHH8 CDmq//VRcK5l5OKTaJe4IaNIIIvFkBRg8Am3TB2p/cRqM96OS8NJcWKycgQ9lOTL CDq3iLdCkc2N83iHGmlcTf0lkuBWu1J3m6G6td3v6f6NpnabmlIt5WmSJ5u814s= =ELkK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
On 8 November 2010 05:54, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@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@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 8 November, 2010, 0:22 On 7 November 2010 12:26, David Gerard dger...@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=citmedpart=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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
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 geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 November 2010 05:54, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@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@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 8 November, 2010, 0:22 On 7 November 2010 12:26, David Gerard dger...@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=citmedpart=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@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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
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 Yes, and that's where we fall down. Many of us are editors with purpose. They many be noble purposes, but often we ourselves have an agenda, of some sort, even if only to highlight neglected truths. Somehow though, the evil of exposing the gulag pales beside the evil of selling drugs with serious unreported side effects. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/11/2010 01:33, Fred Bauder wrote: Everything that is done incorrectly because of funding is also done by those who have an intellectual or emotional stake in the outcome Yes, and that's where we fall down. Many of us are editors with purpose. They many be noble purposes, but often we ourselves have an agenda, of some sort, even if only to highlight neglected truths. I'm trying to understand precisely what you mean here. Could you elaborate ? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM2NKYAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LRx8IAI9I0CaYL0uGwXgpq1H16RpB 37Dd8Cfv/nV+7Ue4LP1n5j0QdILDUtk/BaBxuI1FVEVSid9h3MDM1oMX4nvm2ADk iyY7+iVx/KZWv7C2c79b+bU6PeElaFwQpxqlS9dtzA9X3CJdlYXXSMofTkKFB2Nn CVzgfX+eRgr3RzjXShweLK3qLfYfaJwJM7auUGiCv3GMKaAI8lk3H1fnuhTTHUIy kHACpStCxbYHEdbdD92Ob3j2Txvm7sYiJcL0+2C62560KRv/lJdFbVH0GvXSBhbl K7fMNXZmAZYGqweFXWxy3MmxpejdI14cB2iB75XjALdIbtzHQgmIchb9P/jQJrc= =hAGp -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
On 7 November 2010 12:26, David Gerard dger...@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/). So if you wanted to follow the standards of their field editors would have to disclose their funding source. This would presumably result in a history entry looking something like this: 12:23, 6 November 2010 examplestudent (talk | contribs | block) (127,638 bytes) (nonsensical edit involving plankton)(funding:parents +student loans company limited+Joint Information Systems Committee) (rollback | undo) -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
Not so. The difference is we document reliable sources, we don't create them. A user writing X said Y is not verifying that Y is true. They are verifying that X said Y was true. They need to show evidence that any third party can check, why they believe X said Y is true. Once that's done, the status of the editor is immaterial - because they themselves are not creating anything so their ability to create information isn't at question. They are simply saying this is what X said, this is where anyone can check X said it and form their own view. By contrast academics and researchers writing papers are forming their own view. So the factors going into that are crucial to assess the quality and basis of that view and reliance a reader may wish to personally place on it. FT2 On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:22 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 November 2010 12:26, David Gerard dger...@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/). So if you wanted to follow the standards of their field editors would have to disclose their funding source. This would presumably result in a history entry looking something like this: 12:23, 6 November 2010 examplestudent (talk | contribs | block) (127,638 bytes) (nonsensical edit involving plankton)(funding:parents +student loans company limited+Joint Information Systems Committee) (rollback | undo) -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:28 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Not so. The difference is we document reliable sources, we don't create them. A user writing X said Y is not verifying that Y is true. They are verifying that X said Y was true. They need to show evidence that any third party can check, why they believe X said Y is true. Once that's done, the status of the editor is immaterial - because they themselves are not creating anything so their ability to create information isn't at question. They are simply saying this is what X said, this is where anyone can check X said it and form their own view. The point geni was making is that while it is appropriate for journals to publish funding information with their articles, it is not normal for people citing those articles to note the same with each citation. I think geni also flippantly pointed out that the potential for COI of our contributors is the elephant in the room. I hope you don't truly believe that our contributors have no COI and the COI of our editors is immaterial on the _current_ state of the content. The hope is that over time NPOV will rise to the top, but in many topical areas this has yet to eventuate. By contrast academics and researchers writing papers are forming their own view. So the factors going into that are crucial to assess the quality and basis of that view and reliance a reader may wish to personally place on it. The factors involved are not limited to funding; at the end of the day we need to be discerning about which sources we use, rather than use them all and add lots of information to the citations for the reader to decide how biased the sources are. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
I haven't heard the word eventuate before. My comment addresses the plain meaning of the words - namely that if sourcing style was followed editors would have to disclose funding sources too. The wiki process means that editors (even grossly biased ones) are not creators of novel views. Their edits and the article as a whole can be derived from writings of those who did create the views included. It's the latter whose biases, ultimately, need checking. A wiki editor who is biased has their edits (and the state of the article) speak for them. The material can therefore in principle be neutrally assessed by his/her peers without knowledge of that editor's private views *. That's not true for the authors of the content we cite. * - of course often that can't happen due to disruption, but in principle we could find neutral editors for any article in any stage, who could so assess it. So in principle this is always true even in specific cases it doesn't happen. FT2 On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:44 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:28 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Not so. The difference is we document reliable sources, we don't create them. A user writing X said Y is not verifying that Y is true. They are verifying that X said Y was true. They need to show evidence that any third party can check, why they believe X said Y is true. Once that's done, the status of the editor is immaterial - because they themselves are not creating anything so their ability to create information isn't at question. They are simply saying this is what X said, this is where anyone can check X said it and form their own view. The point geni was making is that while it is appropriate for journals to publish funding information with their articles, it is not normal for people citing those articles to note the same with each citation. I think geni also flippantly pointed out that the potential for COI of our contributors is the elephant in the room. I hope you don't truly believe that our contributors have no COI and the COI of our editors is immaterial on the _current_ state of the content. The hope is that over time NPOV will rise to the top, but in many topical areas this has yet to eventuate. By contrast academics and researchers writing papers are forming their own view. So the factors going into that are crucial to assess the quality and basis of that view and reliance a reader may wish to personally place on it. The factors involved are not limited to funding; at the end of the day we need to be discerning about which sources we use, rather than use them all and add lots of information to the citations for the reader to decide how biased the sources are. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
I think geni also flippantly pointed out that the potential for COI of our contributors is the elephant in the room. I hope you don't truly believe that our contributors have no COI and the COI of our editors is immaterial on the _current_ state of the content. The hope is that over time NPOV will rise to the top, but in many topical areas this has yet to eventuate. This is a good point, rarely are editors simply randomly editing. They have interests, they may be fans, have partisan views, be doing actual public relations work, or just have an interest in getting a story that is frequently distorted straight. The factors involved are not limited to funding; at the end of the day we need to be discerning about which sources we use, rather than use them all and add lots of information to the citations for the reader to decide how biased the sources are. -- John Vandenberg A brief notation of the funding of a research project is not lots of information. We have good sources that research projects funded by marketers, at least those published, show systemic bias. Not enough bias to disqualify them entirely as a class as reliable sources, but enough to justify noting funding. Journalistic reports by state supported media share that same characteristic. It would be wrong to wholly discount it, but equally wrong to treat it as we would independent journalism. Bottom line, is reliance on editorial judgment. Something that is hard for a mass organization to develop. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing... To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 8 November, 2010, 0:22 On 7 November 2010 12:26, David Gerard dger...@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=citmedpart=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. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
Works for me. FT2 On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to drive it in the rest of the way. These ethics standards serve the ideal of communicating reliable knowledge to readers. This is one of the ideals that the Foundation was built upon. They are also expressly designed to protect and enhance the reputation of the publication that provides this information. While our reputation will never be able to compare to those of top medical journals, I see no reason why we should fail to take reasonable and feasible steps to protect it to the extent that we can, following the example of the best sources. Andreas So, disclosure of funding source when available, included in Template:Cite journal Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
Does not work for me,, because it unreasonably implies that references without it are not so funded. On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:56 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Works for me. FT2 On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to drive it in the rest of the way. These ethics standards serve the ideal of communicating reliable knowledge to readers. This is one of the ideals that the Foundation was built upon. They are also expressly designed to protect and enhance the reputation of the publication that provides this information. While our reputation will never be able to compare to those of top medical journals, I see no reason why we should fail to take reasonable and feasible steps to protect it to the extent that we can, following the example of the best sources. Andreas So, disclosure of funding source when available, included in Template:Cite journal Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
By flagging a piece of research as 'funding by ACME Big Pharma', we suggest that the research is somehow flawed, without clearly saying it, without any evidence, and without sources that support our suggestion. This is akin to adding categories which are not unambiguously supported by prose and references in the body of an article. We should not cast sources into a bad light by suggesting their research is clouded by the funding unless reliable sources have said so first. Often the problem is _not_ that the research which is published is bad, but that unfavourable research is not published. In this case, casting a shadow over the published work does not help the reader, and does not impact upon the unpublished research. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform to attack the systemic problem of industry funded research in some areas of medicine. We have articles about this topic; that should be the extent of the platform. Respected journals have occasionally been caught out, and they are becoming more astute about checking the submissions. It is appropriate that journals expect that researchers provide information to _them_ about potential conflict of interests, so it can be available for peer-reviewers both before and after publishing. Where it is failing, journalists and researchers need to highlight the problems, and journal editors need to improve their processes to prevent the problem, or at least ensure that the researchers have breached their policies when the problems are exposed. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
John, by your rationale, every scholarly journal that follows defined ethics guidelines *requiring* that the funding be disclosed impugns the authors' integrity. Does it really? There is a difference between transparency and assumption of wrongdoing; and history is full of people who resisted transparency with similar arguments. It is like saying our politicians should not have to disclose their expenses, because asking them to do so implies an assumption of wrongdoing on their part. There is no such assumption, but there is also a recognition in society that transparency helps prevent abuse. As for David's point, Does not work for me,, because it unreasonably implies that references without it are not so funded. ways around this can easily be found, if there is a will to do so. For example, if the funding field is left empty, it could be made to default to something like no data available. Andreas --- On Sun, 7/11/10, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: From: John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com By flagging a piece of research as 'funding by ACME Big Pharma', we suggest that the research is somehow flawed, without clearly saying it, without any evidence, and without sources that support our suggestion. This is akin to adding categories which are not unambiguously supported by prose and references in the body of an article. We should not cast sources into a bad light by suggesting their research is clouded by the funding unless reliable sources have said so first. Often the problem is _not_ that the research which is published is bad, but that unfavourable research is not published. In this case, casting a shadow over the published work does not help the reader, and does not impact upon the unpublished research. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform to attack the systemic problem of industry funded research in some areas of medicine. We have articles about this topic; that should be the extent of the platform. Respected journals have occasionally been caught out, and they are becoming more astute about checking the submissions. It is appropriate that journals expect that researchers provide information to _them_ about potential conflict of interests, so it can be available for peer-reviewers both before and after publishing. Where it is failing, journalists and researchers need to highlight the problems, and journal editors need to improve their processes to prevent the problem, or at least ensure that the researchers have breached their policies when the problems are exposed. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
--- On Sun, 7/11/10, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: It is appropriate that journals expect that researchers provide information to _them_ about potential conflict of interests, so it can be available for peer-reviewers both before and after publishing. In case this was not clear to you, journals *publish* this information as part of the paper, for the benefit of their readers. A. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to drive it in the rest of the way. On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Tue, 2/11/10, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:36 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: .. There have been plenty of studies on drugs, which were not paid for, by anyone with a vested monetary interest in changing the drug's market outlook. Being flippant as John was, hardly forwards the conversation. The point I was making is that there is a lot of different types of research, funded by different groups with different agendas. 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'. We have had a number of red herrings and strawmen in this discussion so far: 1. That this is about editors' POV pushing. -- It isn't in my case. I don't edit this topic area. What I am concerned about is that we do not appear to follow the publication ethics of the best journalistic and scholarly sources in this field. 2. That this is an issue associated with poorly sourced studies, and would be resolved by making sure we use reputable sources. -- This is about peer-reviewed research in the best journals, like The Lancet, JAMA, and so forth. The editors of these journals decided that, as a fundamental point of publishing ethics, they would disclose conflict-of-interest information in all biomedical research articles. The editors of these journals felt this was vital to safeguard the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. 3. That this is only about individual studies, which shouldn't be used as sources anyway, and that the problem is resolved automatically by using systematic reviews. -- The editors of JAMA, The Lancet, etc. have specifically pointed out - http://www.icmje.org/ethical_4conflicts.html - that Disclosure of such relationships is also important in connection with editorials and review articles. In other words, reviews are as subject to conflicts of interest as clinical trials. In addition, our guidelines allow citation of individual studies, and many are in fact cited, without available conflict-of-interest information included. 4. That this standard is about scholarly publishing, and doesn't apply to us as encyclopedists/journalists. -- The gold standard for journalism is the same as for scholarly publishing: If you cite researchers or studies, disclose their conflicts of interests. 5. That this would inflate the article by adding extraneous detail. -- We are typically talking about the addition of four words: sponsored by the manufacturer, funded by the British Heart Foundation, etc. 6. That reliable sources mentioning such research do not mention funding, and that therefore we shouldn't either. -- Many do. Some that do not have been severely criticised for it. 7. That this would lead editors to add further extraneous POV detail. -- This is addressed by existing policies and guidelines, which require that cited sources should directly address the article topic. In addition, disclosing conflicts of interest as a matter of course is likely to help placate editors concerned about research bias, thereby reducing the number of disputes initiated by such editors. 8. That this would lead to our having to report funding sources for research in other areas, such as computing. -- We take our cues from what reliable sources do. There would be no basis for requiring editors to report funding of cited computing studies, unless there were a well-defined publishing ethics standard in computing, similar to the publishing standard established for biomedical research. These ethics standards serve the ideal of communicating reliable knowledge to readers. This is one of the ideals that the Foundation was built upon. They are also expressly designed to protect and enhance the reputation of the publication that provides this information. While our reputation will never be able to compare to those of top medical journals, I see no reason why we should fail to take reasonable and feasible steps to protect it to the extent that we can, following the example of the best sources. Andreas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to drive it in the rest of the way. These ethics standards serve the ideal of communicating reliable knowledge to readers. This is one of the ideals that the Foundation was built upon. They are also expressly designed to protect and enhance the reputation of the publication that provides this information. While our reputation will never be able to compare to those of top medical journals, I see no reason why we should fail to take reasonable and feasible steps to protect it to the extent that we can, following the example of the best sources. Andreas So, disclosure of funding source when available, included in Template:Cite journal Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
--- On Tue, 2/11/10, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:36 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: .. There have been plenty of studies on drugs, which were not paid for, by anyone with a vested monetary interest in changing the drug's market outlook. Being flippant as John was, hardly forwards the conversation. The point I was making is that there is a lot of different types of research, funded by different groups with different agendas. 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'. We have had a number of red herrings and strawmen in this discussion so far: 1. That this is about editors' POV pushing. -- It isn't in my case. I don't edit this topic area. What I am concerned about is that we do not appear to follow the publication ethics of the best journalistic and scholarly sources in this field. 2. That this is an issue associated with poorly sourced studies, and would be resolved by making sure we use reputable sources. -- This is about peer-reviewed research in the best journals, like The Lancet, JAMA, and so forth. The editors of these journals decided that, as a fundamental point of publishing ethics, they would disclose conflict-of-interest information in all biomedical research articles. The editors of these journals felt this was vital to safeguard the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. 3. That this is only about individual studies, which shouldn't be used as sources anyway, and that the problem is resolved automatically by using systematic reviews. -- The editors of JAMA, The Lancet, etc. have specifically pointed out - http://www.icmje.org/ethical_4conflicts.html - that Disclosure of such relationships is also important in connection with editorials and review articles. In other words, reviews are as subject to conflicts of interest as clinical trials. In addition, our guidelines allow citation of individual studies, and many are in fact cited, without available conflict-of-interest information included. 4. That this standard is about scholarly publishing, and doesn't apply to us as encyclopedists/journalists. -- The gold standard for journalism is the same as for scholarly publishing: If you cite researchers or studies, disclose their conflicts of interests. 5. That this would inflate the article by adding extraneous detail. -- We are typically talking about the addition of four words: sponsored by the manufacturer, funded by the British Heart Foundation, etc. 6. That reliable sources mentioning such research do not mention funding, and that therefore we shouldn't either. -- Many do. Some that do not have been severely criticised for it. 7. That this would lead editors to add further extraneous POV detail. -- This is addressed by existing policies and guidelines, which require that cited sources should directly address the article topic. In addition, disclosing conflicts of interest as a matter of course is likely to help placate editors concerned about research bias, thereby reducing the number of disputes initiated by such editors. 8. That this would lead to our having to report funding sources for research in other areas, such as computing. -- We take our cues from what reliable sources do. There would be no basis for requiring editors to report funding of cited computing studies, unless there were a well-defined publishing ethics standard in computing, similar to the publishing standard established for biomedical research. These ethics standards serve the ideal of communicating reliable knowledge to readers. This is one of the ideals that the Foundation was built upon. They are also expressly designed to protect and enhance the reputation of the publication that provides this information. While our reputation will never be able to compare to those of top medical journals, I see no reason why we should fail to take reasonable and feasible steps to protect it to the extent that we can, following the example of the best sources. Andreas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
