Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis

Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com
Wed Mar 11 06:08:16 EDT 2015


I actually wrote to Jan Talmon about this when I was first aware of it 
(30 Oct 2013) and gave him my opinion of the quality of the science in 
this paper (it wasn't very positive;-). His view was that I / we / 
someone should write a letter to the editor of IJMI in which the errors 
/ shortcomings are discussed. I did not do this for lack of time, but I 
think it would make sense to still do this and/or write a much better 
paper on the topic, which could cover actual evidence and science being 
done in openEHR projects, Intermountain environment, and UPV projects as 
well.

thoughts?

- thomas

On 01/03/2015 20:38, Diego Boscá wrote:
> I agree, a response paper seems the most logical approach.
>
> 2015-03-01 21:31 GMT+01:00 Koray Atalag <k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz>:
>> I’m completely disappointed, but not surprised, that this paper was accepted
>> as a scientific paper in the first place with such bold arguments.
>>
>> We have all seen him advocating on openEHR during quite a few EU FP6 project
>> proposals – I certainly attended a few workshops together. At some point he
>> must have been alienated or something?? At any rate I think it is our
>> responsibility to publish a formal rebuttal and challenge this paper. That’s
>> what science is about, isn’t it?
>>
>>






More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list