Not what I really meant. I was after that one has to trust them to actually provide a suitable and representative coverage on all the papers released on the subject.
I think that concern is partly covered by their scoring. If a bad-faith actor put together a distorted gathering of papers that favored their conclusions but weren’t cited widely, those papers would have very small circles.
So it would be visually apparent that either: they were being dishonest in their research gathering, or the question has not yet been studied widely enough for this tool to be useful.
The more I think about this the more I love this project and their way of displaying the state of consensus on a question.
Something I’ve seen on some PubMed meta-analyses is the inclusion of the various search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria used; something along those lines maybe?
Not what I really meant. I was after that one has to trust them to actually provide a suitable and representative coverage on all the papers released on the subject.
I see, thanks for clarifying.
I think that concern is partly covered by their scoring. If a bad-faith actor put together a distorted gathering of papers that favored their conclusions but weren’t cited widely, those papers would have very small circles.
So it would be visually apparent that either: they were being dishonest in their research gathering, or the question has not yet been studied widely enough for this tool to be useful.
The more I think about this the more I love this project and their way of displaying the state of consensus on a question.
Something I’ve seen on some PubMed meta-analyses is the inclusion of the various search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria used; something along those lines maybe?