Talk:FUTON bias/Archive 1

This
This doesn't seem very NPOV. From what I think of as a sane point of view, the issue is that online research is easier to access and therefore provide more benefit to other researchers, who reward their publishers by citing them more. This page spins this as a "failure" and paints as victims the researchers and journals who selfishly hoard their work instead of putting it online as they should.

I'd edit the article, but I'm clearly not in a very NPOV mood!

Kragen Sitaker 05:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

As the author of the original article in Lancet on the FUTON Bias I dispute that the summary in Wikipedia is not reasonably neutral or that my original paper is biased in the way Kragen suggests. He certainly was not in a NPOV mood when he wrote this comment and should have kept his mouth shut. Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

Reinhard Wentz, London   17.03.2006                  sleuthmedical@yahoo.com

[Kragen: Before editing the article you should perhaps read the paper in Lancet? Reinhard Wentz   12.04.2006]


 * Irony is so delicious. FUTON biased reearch used to refute concept of FUTON bias. Removing dispute flag.--Cberlet 14:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FUTON bias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/79/8/1001.full.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719153236/http://www.njmonline.nl/njm/getpdf.php?t=a&id=10000037 to http://www.njmonline.nl/njm/getpdf.php?t=a&id=10000037

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)