2 ms·

I can second this. Having done extensive research on gut health for my own issues, I have read everything nih.gov has to offer. Some articles are based on pro

I can second this. Having done extensive research on gut health for my own issues, I have read everything nih.gov has to offer. Some articles are based on proper scientific method and decent numbers of test subjects and controlled environments. There are also plenty of papers based on pseudo-science, dogmas and hearsay. After reading through every article they had to offer, it became apparent which articles I could borrow from for my own research and my own health. I would love to see nih.gov implement a voting and discussion system similar to HN so that folks can debate the poor quality research and improve upon the good research.

currymj 8y ago
if your only goal is to get your work published in something that is technically a journal, this is very easy even if the research is very bad, and then it will likely end up on PubMed. fundamentally, it is just a specialized search engine, which will point you to articles published elsewhere, that (unfortunately, in my opinion) happens to be hosted on the nih.gov domain.
- LinuxBender 8y ago
  Aggreed. In many ways they are like wikipedia [0], but they don't provide an easy way (that I can see) to challenge what an article states. [0] - https://livertox.nih.gov/Ibuprofen.htm https://livertox.nih.gov/Ibuprofen.htm And all their references; to your point, are for PubMed. Perhaps it a call for reformation is due, or perhaps setting up wiki's and forums that give people a place to challenge and pick apart these articles.