I think we should be cautious about encouraging the information explosion.
Peer review may be flawed and systematic review may be inappropriate
(and/or flawed) but you can put more trust in a journal article (of
whatever design) in its original state than an (anonymous) individual's
notes and queries.
Or is the intention to have a series of monitored web pages of distilled
evidence?
Mind you, keeping track of the current distilled evidence / secondary data
sources is increasingly difficult.
Which (if any?) of the current sources of summary evidence does everyone
find most useful?
Sara Godward
Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care
University of Hertfordshire
>Supposing you, as a doctor, decide to research something in order to
>manage a patient.
>
>Going to the Web you find nothing much of use or note.
>
>You therefore make searches in other ways, coming in the end to have a
>small set of notes which have satisfied your need at that time.
>
>IMHO you now have a duty to place those on the Web.
>
>Detail
>-------
>COnsider, you were the first person to wish for the Web to include an
>article on tht matter.
>(Or the existing resources are so hard to find as to be outside th
>euniverse of discourse, we will not consider for th emoment poor search
>skills)
>
>Having made that decision - that there should be an article, and then
>gathered the material for the article, you should share it with the
>community whose knowledge you tried to share before.
>
>A cry from the back asks "What about payment?"
>-----------------------------------------------=======
>
>Get the material up there. I will refrain from discussing ethical
>obligations and community spirit, and mention micro-payments instead.
>One day soon you may hope that each hit on your page will trickle
>another 10c into your on-line bank account, and if you get enough up
>there it will be your ISP paying you, not the other way around.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|