Seems like a good compromise.
Michael Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Dlorida
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(And in the evening too). Alerted by an astute and watchful
colleague, I bring to your attention recent essays on the disturbing
implications of the infamous prayer improves in vitro fertilization
rate study published in the _Journal of Reproductive Medicine_ in
2001, which we've discussed
Stephen Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Given some hints in Leibovici's background, my guess is that this is
a deliberate hoax (note its presence in the special Christmas issue
of BMJ) intended to provoke discussion. Yet I don't think he
falsified data. So how he did he do it?
Run
If a deliberate hoax was allowed to remain unrevealed in a professional
journal to stimulate debate for four years, we have bigger problems in
scientific publication than just peer review.
The most obvious explanation for any single unreplicated finding is
spurious results. It is not unheard of
Lenore
I don't think they say anything about that being significant. They are
saying that there were no difference in mortality rates but there were
differences in duration of fever and length of hospital stay. At least
that's how I read it - two sig. results, one non-sig result. So maybe
the
In a TIPS post of 8 Mar 2005 00:17:50+0100, titled Efficient
teaching methods, Philippe Gervaix (2005) wrote [bracketed by lines
G. . . .:
G
A recent report from Canada Which pedagogies are efficient? by
Gauthier C., Mellouki M. al. is
