Talk:Cochrane Collaboration: Difference between revisions
imported>Thomas Simmons m (→Review and EBM Guidelines: link for reprints from Cochrane Library) |
imported>Petréa Mitchell (Article checklist) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{checklist | |||
| abc = Cochrane Collaboration | |||
| cat1 = Health Sciences | |||
| cat2 = | |||
| cat3 = | |||
| cat_check = n | |||
| status = 1 | |||
| underlinked = y | |||
| cleanup = y | |||
| by = [[User:Petréa Mitchell|Petréa Mitchell]] 12:22, 29 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
}} | |||
=Rationale for the article= | =Rationale for the article= | ||
There is one thing possibly wrong with this entry, The Cochrane Collaboration is a portal to subscription only databases. The abstracts can be viewed for free and there is a feedback process for the reviews available to the public. However, it is not unlike PubMed wherein most references are available in full by subscription or pay-per-article. While we assiduously try to avoid promoting commercial efforts, the bottom line is that most research is in some ways only available for a price, though often through nonprofit sources. It is also true that the Cochrane Library Databases have become one of the largest of the highest quality databases for research in medicine. With these factors in mind, it is simply not possible to pretend it is not there but to present this effort as objectively as possible. [[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 04:10 9 April, 2007 (EPT) | There is one thing possibly wrong with this entry, The Cochrane Collaboration is a portal to subscription only databases. The abstracts can be viewed for free and there is a feedback process for the reviews available to the public. However, it is not unlike PubMed wherein most references are available in full by subscription or pay-per-article. While we assiduously try to avoid promoting commercial efforts, the bottom line is that most research is in some ways only available for a price, though often through nonprofit sources. It is also true that the Cochrane Library Databases have become one of the largest of the highest quality databases for research in medicine. With these factors in mind, it is simply not possible to pretend it is not there but to present this effort as objectively as possible. [[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 04:10 9 April, 2007 (EPT) |
Revision as of 11:22, 29 April 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Health Sciences Workgroup [Categories OK] |
Article status | Developed article: complete or nearly so |
Underlinked article? | Yes |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | Petréa Mitchell 12:22, 29 April 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
Rationale for the article
There is one thing possibly wrong with this entry, The Cochrane Collaboration is a portal to subscription only databases. The abstracts can be viewed for free and there is a feedback process for the reviews available to the public. However, it is not unlike PubMed wherein most references are available in full by subscription or pay-per-article. While we assiduously try to avoid promoting commercial efforts, the bottom line is that most research is in some ways only available for a price, though often through nonprofit sources. It is also true that the Cochrane Library Databases have become one of the largest of the highest quality databases for research in medicine. With these factors in mind, it is simply not possible to pretend it is not there but to present this effort as objectively as possible. Thomas Simmons 04:10 9 April, 2007 (EPT)
Review and EBM Guidelines
EBM guidelines are presented here from a free-access, highly reputable, international source rather than the Chochrane Collaboration specifically because the Cochrane Library, while not-for-profit, does not make their work available - they let it out through distributors here. Cochrane Inside, Wiley and Sons here "promotes, sells and distributes the English language version of EBM Guidelines on behalf of Duodecim worldwide" Meanwhile, taxpayers in the USA have graciously allowed us to read a much larger database by reputable sources on a vast array of topics. Thomas Simmons 13:04, 9 April, 2007 (EPT)
- Health Sciences Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Health Sciences Advanced Articles
- Health Sciences Nonstub Articles
- Health Sciences Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Health Sciences Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Health Sciences Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Health Sciences Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Health Sciences External Articles
- Health Sciences Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Health Sciences Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup