Re: ClinMed NetPrints

From: Jim Till <till_at_UHNRES.UTORONTO.CA>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:01:05 -0400

On Thu, 25 May 2000, Tony Delamothe wrote [in part]:

> [td] I suppose I have screened out about 6 submissions
> [td] -because they didn't fulfil our criteria for
> [td] "original research." These articles fall more
> [td] easily into the category of hypothesis.
>
> [td] For original research, I don't think it's up to us
> [td] to have an opinion on whether it's right or not,
> [td] and exclude the stuff that we think isn't.. So
> [td] from where I sit there's no confusion. Clarity,
> [td] really.

Thanks for this very helpful information about the number
of submissions that have been screened out. It would
still, however, be of some interest to learn more about
the definition of "original research" that's being
applied.

If the presentation of a novel hypothesis or novel
research proposal isn't included in a definition of
"original research", then, what else is also excluded?

> [td] We're learning -as are all pure online "plays"-
> [td] that you've got to market your product hard if
> [td] people are going to be aware of its existence.
> [td] And that's for a product for which we have
> [td] identified no supporting revenue stream...and
> [td] we're not looking for one.

I hope that my questions about acceptance criteria for
the ClinMed NetPrints website won't be interpreted as
criticisms of this bold experiment. I think that it's
innovative and very important, and I hope very much
that it will succeed.

Jim Till
Joint Centre for Bioethics
University of Toronto
Received on Mon Jan 24 2000 - 19:17:43 GMT