>From: Rowley Cottingham <[log in to unmask]>
>ROFL!
>Oh dear, I do hope you aren't hoping for a job in Manchester...
>
>Seriously, you have made an exceptionally good point.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>
>Rowley Cottingham
--> As mentioned at the time... I was only kidding...
I see a need developing to get involved in a BET myself very soon. But it
was a quiet Sunday at work and the numbers just caught my eye... Anyway,
someone has already made the obvious point about it - we need to sift out
the 1-2% useful and applicable studies per each topic to save others the
hassle.
But on the other hand, many papers suffer not from mere irrelevance to the
topic we might be searching for. Under appraisal, quite a number are weaker
than we require in terms of sample sizes, methods and/or analysis. (NOT
implying they are easy to do better, as I am aware of how difficult it is).
I wish we could have a stricter pre-publication review and even a star
rating system.
And, as for a job in Manchester - it was tempting, but then I looked in the
map and found that there is no beach there! The temptation wanes...
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
|