Comments on: Another reason to stand up to bullies http://bazargan.org/another-reason-to-stand-up-to-bullies/ Happiness is a journey, not a destination Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:39:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: kaveh http://bazargan.org/another-reason-to-stand-up-to-bullies/#comment-2307 kaveh Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:09:44 +0000 http://bazargan.org/?p=1263#comment-2307 Well, "so", you are right that most research these days is not open access. For example Nature which has a lot of fundamental research has to be paid for. So what can Daily Mail do, but to cite the reference anyway. I would be happy if everything was open access. But I hope you agree on the main point that it is good to stand up to bullies. Well, “so”, you are right that most research these days is not open access. For example Nature which has a lot of fundamental research has to be paid for. So what can Daily Mail do, but to cite the reference anyway. I would be happy if everything was open access.

But I hope you agree on the main point that it is good to stand up to bullies.

]]> By: so http://bazargan.org/another-reason-to-stand-up-to-bullies/#comment-2297 so Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:18:37 +0000 http://bazargan.org/?p=1263#comment-2297 imagine a world where everyone would check their sources before repeating their supposed messages. imagine a world where everyone would check their sources before repeating their supposed messages.

]]> By: so http://bazargan.org/another-reason-to-stand-up-to-bullies/#comment-2296 so Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:16:24 +0000 http://bazargan.org/?p=1263#comment-2296 it is very sad that the dailymail cites articles which are not available to the public (although probably funded by the public), merely their abstracts are. so how can i check what the study is really saying? have you read the study? can you say what's in it? here's a link to the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15677279 (btw. i'm only guessing that this is the article "cited" by the dailymail, because the dailymail article does not bother about proper citing.) (so in conclusion, i also dont understand why you cite the dailymail, which does not even cite the study title?) it is very sad that the dailymail cites articles which are not available to the public (although probably funded by the public), merely their abstracts are.

so how can i check what the study is really saying? have you read the study? can you say what’s in it?

here’s a link to the abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15677279

(btw. i’m only guessing that this is the article “cited” by the dailymail, because the dailymail article does not bother about proper citing.)

(so in conclusion, i also dont understand why you cite the dailymail, which does not even cite the study title?)

]]>