The NLM’s Ted Stevens moment

Posted on by
2

FAILThe NLM has published a comprehensive set of guidelines for citing email, usenet, websites. It’s great that they’re attempting to come up with some standard rules, but one has to wonder if the group coming up with the proposed rules has ever used our fine series of tubes.

There’s a number of issues with their recommendations, some egregiously bad, some just kinda funny. For example, they have one set of rules for citing websites, and a different set of rules for citing electronic mail and discussion forums. This, in itself isn’t so strange, but look at the subcategories in each case:

Websites

  • Homepages
  • Parts of Websites

    Electronic mail and discussion forums

  • Electronic Mail
  • LISTSERVs and Similar Discussion Lists
  • Blogs
  • Wikis
    Apparently “homepages” are somehow different from other Websites, and both are altogether different from blogs and wikis, which don’t even merit inclusion in the Website category. Email gets cited one way, except if it’s an email from a mailing list. That categorization is but a harbinger of the confusion shortly to become apparent.

    For example, while one might cite a part of a website with the full URL to the cited page, the rules for blogs call for only citing the front page. Never mind that blogging is responsible for the invention of the permalink as we know it today. Mention of URIs or DOIs is nowhere to be found.

    That’s the seriously wrong stuff, but as I said, there’s some humor to be found as well. The content type of these sources is given as “blog on the internet” or “discussion list on the internet“.

    • A return to evidence-based policy making

    Posted on by
    Reply

    This is the last site I ever thought I’d be linking to, but everyone should go read Mrs. Clinton’s speech on Scientific Integrity and Innovation. It’s not surprising that Mrs. Clinton is courting the progressive vote in science and education, but what struck me was the bullet point in the attached press release:

  • Restores expert-driven, evidence-based agency decision-making.

    • Hillary will reverse President Bush’s new directive that political appointees exert total control over the development of agency rules.

    Making policy based upon evidence, instead of ideology. What a wonderful idea.

    The three essential components of a good laboratory website.

    Posted on by
    8

    synthesisMy colleague, Attila, asked me months ago what are the components of a good laboratory website. However, my thoughts remained incomplete until I read David Crotty’s post at the CSHL blog that I was able to form an answer, and even then it took me two long comments to get my thoughts straight.

    Continue reading →

    Nature interviews Alan Trounson, the new head of California’s Institute for Regerative Medicine.

    Posted on by
    Reply

    CIRM is a state-run institution with a mission to advance research in regenerative medicine, and it will be interesting to see how effective this kind of monolithic non-university institute can be in terms of making real scientific progress. The position of director is a difficult one because of the two-headed leadership approach, where the director and the advisory board chairman share the leadership role, but also because of the tremendously bright spotlight under which the chairman must labor. It’s good to see, then, that Trounson seems to know what he’s getting himself into.

    Items of note from the interview are:
    He says his primary mission is to push for clinical applications, but later notes that companies have been a little too short-sighted looking for instant cures. This is great because not only does it mean that he’s going to be very interested in MSCs for their ongoing clinical trials, but it also means that the institute won’t be rushing headlong into things without considering the risks. I’ve been saying for some time that more research on immune system interactions is needed, and I’m glad that people in high places are saying that too.

    When asked about what he’s learned from working in reproductive medicine in Australia, he says the main thing he learned is , “Be very, very, careful what you say.”

    Link to Nature article.

    Nature Publishing Group distances themselves from PRISM.

    Posted on by
    Reply

    Dog WhistleThe PRISM Coalition is a fairly unsubtle attempt at obfuscating the issues behind Open Access in scientific publishing, using an approach similar to that employed by the cable and phone companies arguing against net neutrality. Needless to say, it has prompted some rather unsubtle responses. Nature is distancing themselves from PRISM and trying to refocus the attention on the rather complex issues underlying Open Access. All the relevant linkage is in the post, just be sure to not miss J.C. Bradley’s comment.
    [tags]open science, prism, scientific publishing, nature, npg, politics[/tags]