Computer Chips Seem Poised to Shrink Again

http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/trying-to-get-the-bbc-to-li... is Ben Goldacre writing in to the Beeb.

He later had a response ( http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/no-movement-on-the-bbcs-biz... ):

"Many thanks for your message, and interest in the site. The issue of linking to specific research papers, rather than the journals in which they appear is something with which we have long wrestled.

Linking to the journal gives the reader the chance to look at the source of the story, understand something of the wider context and get an idea of whether the research is peer reviewed. It also gives a chance to read associated information in editorials, etc, which often may be of interest. It is also a way for us to credit the journal.

We accept that linking to the specific research paper itself is often a desirable thing to do, and it is certainly something we will try to do more of in future. However, we don't believe that it is something we can do on every occasion - for instance many papers are available on the web via subscription only, while others give only an Abstract summary. In these instances, the vast majority of our readers would not be able to read the full papers, without paying for access, even if we provided the relevant link.

In addition, we do have finite resources, and our view is that our top priority should always be to provide authoratitive, accurate and attractive reportage. We have to balance that against the desirability of providing a link on a story which is likely to be of use only to a small number of our readers.

We have sent out new guidelines to reporting staff summarising our position, and stressing that linking to individual papers is something they should consider as an option on each story."

Which he (and I) thought was a bit rubbish. So it goes.