Many keys have been tapped relating the merits and problems with various mechanisms of peer review for FOAM (Free Open-Access Meducation). It has been discussed on this site in multiple forms (Crowdsourced Instantaneous Review, FOAM: A Market of Ideas, Arguments for a Journal of FOAM, FOAM + Curriculum = FOAM-U?) by Aaron Sparshott at IVLine (Capturing the Great FOAM), by Damian Rolond at The Rolobot Rambles (Peer Review: Pointless, Perfunctionary or Practical) as well as on twitter (thanks …
A Review of Systematic Reviews
Dr. Wikipedia said that:“An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is becoming mandatory for all professionals involved in the delivery of health care.” And to me, the word of Wikipedia is the next best thing to the word of Weingart. As usual, I think Dr. Wikipedia is correct. Systematic reviews are where a lot of the evidence-based medicine that we aspire to practice is consolidated, and we require …
Arguments for a Journal of FOAM
Over the past couple of weeks myself and others (Michelle Lin, Todd Raine, Lauren Westafer, Minh Le Cong, Javier Benítez , Simon Carley, Nadim Lalani, etc!) have tweeted, mused and, in the case of Michelle Lin, even experimented with the idea of peer-review for FOAM. My thoughts are summarized in blog posts here and here. Those posts, along with Todd Raine’s Storified version of the twitter conversation and Michelle Lin’s post on her experiment …
Crowdsourced Instantaneous Review: The Peer Review of FOAM?
I was talking to my PD about FOAM the other day and mentioned how crazy it was that we have the ability to produce and disseminate content so widely, easily and cheaply. How great it was that this, in some respects, allowed us to unhinge CME from the clutches of drug and device companies and potentially speed up knowledge translation. He agreed that it was awesome before adding a “but” of wisdom. “But …