May 26

MLA 2008: Plenary Session IV Slides

David Rothman

Amanda Etches-Johnson

Melissa Rethlefsen

Bart Ragon

Apr 02

How to: Follow CIL 2008 online via RSS [Edited again]

[edit]

  • Added a feed from Google Blog Search (which uses a fairly narrow search) to the Superfeed.
  • Added filters to the Superfeed to screen out a handful of false positives.
  • Embedded Grazr widget (see end of post)

[/edit]

[edit2]
Wouter has made the Superfeed available in Dutch. :)
[/edit2]

To make sure I don’t miss any online chatter about Computers in Libraries 2008 (which starts next Monday), I’m subscribed to the following feeds:

If you’re like me, you’d rather subscribe to one feed than several, so all the feeds above are included in the feed below:

Single feed that combines all of the above:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/Cil2008Superfeed

Grazr widget below will let you browse the Superfeed contents:

Mar 26

MedLib Blog Badge at Info.RxCases

Info.RxCases is a “companion to a new health information service that is being offered to patients and their families at the Herzl Family Practise Centre in Montreal, Quebec.”

Blogger Francesca Frati (previously mentioned here) writes:

The Patient health Information Service at Herzl (H-PHIS) opened its doors in early July of this year (2007) and is in the early developmental stages. The challenges faced by myself (the service’s coordinator), the staff, and the health care team at the HFPC are many and varied, as is to be expected when implementing a new and innovative service.

Perhaps the most unique aspect of the InfoRx model is the presence and participation of the information professional/librarian at point of care. This new and multidisciplinary approach presents a distinctive challenge. Health and support staff are not always clear on what knowledge and skills a librarian brings to the team. Conversely, I must be able to recognize and adapt to the needs and character of the community and of the setting itself.

This blog was created in response to some very astute and constructive criticism. After presenting to the residents at their weekly rounds, I was approached by one of the partners at the clinic who suggested that rather than introducing myself and the service and then explaining how to use it, it would have been more effective to present some cases illustrating what the service has to offer to the residents and to their patients. I see this as a perfect example of the kind of disconnect that can happen when two very different professions come together. In essence I had presented the way I would have to my own professional colleagues, but this was not the most appropriate approach given my audience.

After giving it some thought it occurred to me that it could be useful, both for myself and the rest of the team, for me to present a weekly case here, and talk about some of the challenges we are faced with and how these might best be resolved. Hopefully this will introduce some transparency to the InfoRx process.

This is meant to serve as a record of, and forum for discussion about, our challenges and successes. It is hopefully also an opportunity for other information professionals to be inspired by one example of what can be accomplished outside of the library setting.

Such a great idea.

Why is David always on about this badgey stuff? Badges? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!

Previously, I’ve noted the following blogs that display the MedLib Blog badge in their sidebars:

These blogs are:

  1. about medical / health / health sciences / biomedical librarianship;
  2. written by (a) medical librarian(s) or medical library paraprofessional(s);
  3. maintained by a medical library; or
  4. maintained by professional association of medical librarians and/or medical library paraprofessionals.

Hey! My blog has the MedLib Blog badge and you haven’t featured it here!

Sorry! I do try for omniscience, but frequently fall short of this goal. If I’ve missed the badge on your blog or if you’ve just added it, please let me know so I can link to it from here.

Why would I want to add the badge to my blog?

The badge links back to the masterlist of MedLib blogs to indicate the blog’s membership in the growing community (and sense of community) of MedLib blogs(/bloggers). (This should serve also as a reminder to add your blog to this masterlist, if appropriate.)

To add this badge to your own blog, just copy and paste this code:


&#60a href="http://liswiki.org/wiki/Medlib_Blogs"&#62
&#60img src="http://tinyurl.com/y32hh8/"&#62&#60/a&#62

Not sure how to do this with your particular blogging software? Email me at david[DOT]rothman[AT]gmail[DOT]com and we’ll figure it out together. :)

Mar 04

JMLA Case Studies Blog: Search Challenge

(Just a quick note from a rehearsal break in Chicago)

I love this announcement from the JMLA Case Studies in Health Sciences Librarianship blog:

“…we’re going to start posting a “search challenge” question each Monday. We encourage you to post your ideas and questions in the comments or to us by email (using our profile links above). You can also feel free to “reference interview” us by posting questions for clarification or more detail as needed.

Then, each Friday we’ll post a search strategy and other thoughts on that question. We hope this will add to the usefulness of the cases by giving another outlet for developing searching skills and discussing strategies with colleagues.”

Feb 25

Rachel Walden on Replacing LIS Journals with Blogs

In response to this post about Marcus Banks’ assertion that Professional Librarian Journals Should Evolve into Blogs, Rachel Walden (a medical librarian, a blogger and an editor at the JMLA) left the following comments:

…I tend to agree with T. Scott on these mattersDavid’s footnote: See T. Scott’s comments here, for several reasons. I don’t see any reason why librarianship journals as blogs should be singled out as a specialty (goose, gander, etc.) in this discussion, so I’ll talk about this more generally.

1) I believe there is value in having a final version of a manuscript on the record. Getting things out quickly isn’t the only goal in publishing a paper, or shouldn’t be. A larger goal is to contribute to the body of knowledge on a topic, in a way that can be cited and referred to and built upon in the future. If the idea is that authors would post their work to a blog and solicit comments, presumably that manuscript is in a constant revisional state, forever and ever, unless the authors finally shut down comments (at what point is the amount of critique enough?) and post a “final” version. This is perhaps more important when large flaws are detected, and it is nice to have a record of the final version of the manuscript. When citing it, are you citing the final version, or some version in which the author tweaked something in the post? If you cite it, will changes happen later that render your reference irrelevant? I think this process would make it harder to talk about what a given author said or did, and it also puts a tremendous amount of trust in the authors not to change things in a way that is dishonest or unethical. With an official “final” version, the author is officially on the record, and I think that’s an important concept.

2)”The argument for pre-publication peer review is that it filters out poor research.” Marcus seems to believe that this isn’t an issue for library research, or at least that the stakes aren’t high enough to matter. I would ask whether librarians seeking tenure and professional respect are really willing to hang themselves out there like this, simply assuming that what they’ve done is good enough for public consumption. Like Scott, I believe this simply isn’t true. Librarians are perfectly capable of producing research that, in its initial state, would be ripped to shreds by competent reviewers. I suspect that many would prefer that critique to happen more privately, to give them a chance to rethink their assumptions and presentation before opening themselves up to professional criticism and embarrassment.

3) Peer review takes work. When a committed board of peer reviewers exists with a demonstrated interest in the process and a deadline for providing feedback, and an editor does the work Scott mentions prior to publication, it is a certainty that an author will receive feedback. Blog comments are an unreliable thing. Commenters may never hit on the one true major flaw of a manuscript, may not have the expertise to critique to manuscript, or may simply not have time to digest a full manuscript in its raw form and suggest all of the appropriate revisions. The manuscript and the professional body of knowledge may suffer from this, as its not just the shiny, catchy papers that need feedback and critique.

4) Related to #3, it would be important to determine whether a manuscript was just open to whoever felt like commenting (or not), or if peer reviewers would be assigned drop by and comment. Would they be allowed to do so anonymously? Could an editor comment anonymously? If not, would the editor continue to make the needed comments Scott mentions about organization and content? I know some have advocated for peer review that is not anonymous, but I suspect that harsher, yet needed, criticisms might be held back if they had to be publicly written with a name and IP attached.

I’m not saying it couldn’t be done. These are just a handful of issues I see as barriers that would have to be considered. Ultimately, I think part of the question is whether we’re so determined as authors to put our unfiltered thoughts out there as fast as possible, or whether we’re really interested in being accountable and on the record and contributing to the professional knowledge base in a substantial way, even if it takes a little longer. I want to think about this a little longer.

The first of Rachel’s four points made me think about wikis. Since most articles on most wikis lack “final versions,” they might have the same problem that Rachel describes here. Imagine we have a wiki for an academic discipline where contributors are vetted professionals in their disciplines, where the administrators are transparently listed, where rigorous editorial policies are strictly enforced, and where there is an active community of revision that seeks to constantly improve entries. In this hypothetical, we’ll also imagine that the wiki is, for these reasons, considered an authoritative resource by most academics in the discipline it serves. In this hypothetical, how would such a resource be cited when, as Rachel points out, there may not be a “final” version? As it turns out, this isn’t really very hard because good wiki software includes a revision history for every pageHere’s an example of a history page from Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself suggests how it can best be cited in a way that clearly indicates what revision the citing author is referring to by including in the citation the date on which the information was retrieved from the Web. Where blogging software would fail to solve this problem is in that most blogging platforms do not have a convenient way of tracking revision history. Developers: Could we please have a WordPress plugin for “versioning” posts?

Getting it out quickly

When it comes to technology topics, I think that getting the information out quickly is especially important because the technology changes so dang quickly.

For a while there, I thought about TechEssence as kind of informal, blog-based journal on technology topics of interest to LIS people. It went without being updated for long periods and in recent months Roy Tennant has been the only person posting to it, but it is a good concept, isn’t it?

I think that library technologists would probably be mostly comfortable throwing their work onto the Web for immediate criticism and would, in fact, rely on their peers to examine their work critically. I mean, have you ever seen technologists discuss technology books? Most geeks I know seem to have a compulsion to get out the red pen and start correcting what they see as flaws.

So…

So if Marcus moves forward with his goal of making a blog-based LIS journal (something I’m still not entirely convinced is a good idea), I’d suggest making technology its focus and developing a revision history plugin for WordPress.

Feb 18

New JEAHIL: Semantic Web Applications in Biology and Medicine

The Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries has a new issue out.

On page 41 of the PDF, check out an article by Ioana Robu (“Semantic Web applications in biology and medicine”) that updates “An introduction to the Semantic Web for health sciences librarians” (J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94(2):198-205.) with information about semantic Web applications.

While you’re in that PDF, also consider checking out:

  • Benoit Thirion recommends recent literature starting on page 45.
  • Starting on page 47, Oliver Obst’s “Web 2.0″ column makes notes on developments on the Web since the previous issue of the JEAHIL.
Feb 12

Troubled Tuesday (Reactions to Marcus Monday)

Dean Giustini likes Marcus’ idea about replacing LIS journals with blogs (see yesterday’s post), but also has concerns:

…my only reservation is when research methods are used such as randomization and the articles would need to go through peer-review.

T. Scott (former editor of the JMLA and one of my favorite contrarians) explains some of his reservations about the idea:

I’m not one who is terribly impressed by the “wisdom of crowds” (a concept that seems to be especially dubious during the US election season). I’ve rarely seen anything approaching substantive discussion and analysis take place in a comment thread, and the longer the thread, the more worthless it typically is. Rather than providing vibrant post-publication review, I’m afraid that posting unedited articles for comment would result in much good work being buried and ignored.

[…snip…]

Marcus is pushing the right questions, and everyone involved in scholarly publishing, at whatever level, should be thinking creatively about how to make the communication and discussion of projects and ideas more effective.

I’ve noticed my neck often aches after reading T. Scott’s blog. After some investigation, I’ve finally figured out that this is because I can’t seem to stop nodding my head while I read him.

I especially like this last bit of his post:

But it isn’t a matter of journals vs blogs. The most effective modes of communication that we develop over the next decade will adopt features that we associate with each, but will be fundamentally different from either.

I couldn’t agree more. I don’t think that blogs or wikis are going to revolutionize medicine, education, or publishing- but some applications of their descendent technologies might.

Since LIS News and LibraryStuff both posted about it, I’m betting there’ll be more interesting opinions to enjoy soon.

Feb 04

Scinversations: Aggregating Online Conversation About an Article

I think Jon Udell started it.

Jon noted that science stories get released online and bookmarked, commented upon, and blogged about all over the Web.

It’s all happening on the web, but it’s happening in isolated ghettoes with few points of actual contact. How could we bring those worlds into closer contact?

Jon also suggests how this might best be done.

Here’s one approach that could help. When the citation engines in the blogosphere find references in blog entries to scientific articles on the web, they could resolve those to their most canonical forms: DOIs, PubMed records. And they could make equivalences among those forms. That way, conversation in the blogosophere about a scientific article, and scientific conversation about the same article, would tend to hang together and would be discoverable in the same contexts.

Alf Eaton seemed to think this was a good idea and built a tool at Scintilla to do this. Go give Scintilla Conversations a try.

There’s also a Scinversations bookmarklet you can drag and drop on to your browser’s toolbar: Scinversations

Peter Suber points out a perfect PubMed Central article with which you can take the Scinversations bookmarklet to a test drive.

Nicely done, Alf!

Feb 02

Google’s Social Graph API

The new Social Graph API from Google might prove really interesting.

I added a bunch of XFN ‘rel’ attributes to this blog’s links so I can do a little more playing (if you’re using WordPress, you can do this quickly and easily).

Someday I’ll get around to writing about microformats here- but not today.

For more on why this new API is interesting, see this item from Tim O’Reilly.

Jan 27

Your Opinion Please: del.icio.us Link Posts

For about a week, I’ve had del.icio.us set up to create daily posts on this blog to point out things I’ve found interesting but don’t have time to write about individually.

What do you think? Are these good? Helpful? Welcome? Should I keep this set-up?

I’d be grateful to hear any opinions you care to share.

Thanks!

-David

Jan 22

MedLib Blog Badge at Bobobiblioblog

Le beau (bo) blog d’un bobo bibliothécaire en médecine – là où l’on soigne les bobos, dans tous les sens du terme.

If I’m making proper use of translation tools and not being an idiot (bit dicey to make bets on that…), the title of this blog (Bobobiblioblog) appears to be a play on words, saying that the blogger is a “beautiful one” (bo) and, as a medical librarian, a librarian for what anglophonic children might call “boo-boos” (injuries).

Francophones should please correct me if I’m mistaken.

Why is David always on about this badgey stuff? Badges? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!

Previously, I’ve noted the following blogs that display the MedLib Blog badge in their sidebars:

These blogs are:

  1. about medical / health / health sciences / biomedical librarianship;
  2. written by (a) medical librarian(s) or medical library paraprofessional(s);
  3. maintained by a medical library; or
  4. maintained by professional association of medical librarians and/or medical library paraprofessionals.

Hey! My blog has the MedLib Blog badge and you haven’t featured it here!

Sorry! I do try for omniscience, but frequently fall short of this goal. If I’ve missed the badge on your blog or if you’ve just added it, please let me know so I can link to it from here.

Why would I want to add the badge to my blog?

The badge links back to the masterlist of MedLib blogs to indicate the blog’s membership in the growing community (and sense of community) of MedLib blogs(/bloggers). (This should serve also as a reminder to add your blog to this masterlist, if appropriate.)

To add this badge to your own blog, just copy and paste this code:


&#60a href="http://liswiki.org/wiki/Medlib_Blogs"&#62
&#60img src="http://tinyurl.com/y32hh8/"&#62&#60/a&#62

Not sure how to do this with your particular blogging software? Email me at david[DOT]rothman[AT]gmail[DOT]com and we’ll figure it out together. :)

Jan 21

MedLib Blog Readers Survey: Preliminary Results

Marcus Banks has closed and posted the results of his survey (previously mentioned here) for “librarians who read blogs that are written by health sciences librarians and targeted to other professionals.”

Check out the results here.

I loved seeing the results of Question 5:

5. How do you follow blogs?: 256 responses (1o people skipped this question)

A. Bookmark/check periodically: 61/256 (23.8% of 256)
B. Subscribe via RSS: 188/256 (73.4% of 256)
C. Subscribe via email: 7/256 (2.7% of 256)

So glad to see that so many are sensibly using RSS. :)

Also interesting:

6. Of the choices below, what BEST describes the reason you read blogs?: 243 responses (23 people skipped this question)

A. Current awareness about new technologies and tools: 185/243 (76.1% of 243)
B. Source of discussion and debate: 39/243 (16% of 243)
C. Tips on what to read in the professional literature: 13/243 (5.3 % of 243)
D. To increase professional connections: 6/243 (2.5% of 243)
E. Other (please specify): 40 comments. As always, making comments depended upon selecting one of the options provided.

This is exciting:

7. How often do you attempt to incorporate what you read about in librarian blogs in your work?: 261 responses (5 people skipped this question)

A. Very infrequently: 23/261 (8.8% of 261)
B. Somewhat infrequently: 55/261 (21.1% of 261)
C. Somewhat frequently: 110/261 (42.1% of 261)
D. Frequently: 61/261 (23.4% of 261)
E. Very frequently: 12/261 (4.6% of 261)

So…this would seem to indicate that more than 70% of medical librarians who read medlib blogs “frequently” attempt to incorporate what they learn from blogs into their work! Wow!

Can’t wait to hear more about Marcus’ paper.

Jan 20

17th Edition of Medicine 2.0 Blog Carnival

The 17th Edition is at The Story of Healing.

Standard disclaimer: I don’t like the name of this carnival and some of what is featured in it each week has nothing to do with what O’Reilly described as “Web 2.0″ – but the items it points to are frequently interesting and useful to anyone interested in both healthcare and the Web.

Jan 14

Please Vote! (…preferably for me)

Okay. To my great surprise, it looks like I actually have a chance at winning this award (previously mentioned here and here).

At the moment, I’m trailing Berci’s ScienceRoll- but not by a great margin.

This sort of contest is really about how many people one can motivate to go vote for one’s own endeavor- so the fact that I’m closing on Berci is probably due in no small part to bloggers like Michael Stephens, Wouter Gerritsma, Blake Carver, Zagreus Ammon (blogging under a pseudonym at Physician Executive) and Steven Cohen for encouraging others to vote for my blog.

If you haven’t yet, please head over to vote for davidrothman.net?

Thank you!

Jan 13

MedLib Blog Badge at Patient Education Matters!

Patient Education Matters!” is a bi-weekly e-newsletter for the staff and volunteers of Inova Health System. The “Patient Education Matters!” blog is an abridged version of this publication available to the general public.


Why is David always on about this badgey stuff? Badges? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!

Previously, I’ve noted the following blogs that display the MedLib Blog badge in their sidebars:

These blogs are:

  1. about medical / health / health sciences / biomedical librarianship;
  2. written by (a) medical librarian(s) or medical library paraprofessional(s);
  3. maintained by a medical library; or
  4. maintained by professional association of medical librarians and/or medical library paraprofessionals.

Hey! My blog has the MedLib Blog badge and you haven’t featured it here!

Sorry! I do try for omniscience, but frequently fall short of this goal. If I’ve missed the badge on your blog or if you’ve just added it, please let me know so I can link to it from here.

Why would I want to add the badge to my blog?

The badge links back to the masterlist of MedLib blogs to indicate the blog’s membership in the growing community (and sense of community) of MedLib blogs(/bloggers). (This should serve also as a reminder to add your blog to this masterlist, if appropriate.)

To add this badge to your own blog, just copy and paste this code:


&#60a href="http://liswiki.org/wiki/Medlib_Blogs"&#62
&#60img src="http://tinyurl.com/y32hh8/"&#62&#60/a&#62

Not sure how to do this with your particular blogging software? Email me at david[DOT]rothman[AT]gmail[DOT]com and we’ll figure it out together. :)

Jan 10

The Beauty of the Dialectical Process

Well, I was pretty hard on Dean Giustini’s BMJ Editorial.

I have believed in the value of the dialectical process since long before I knew there was a term for it and have always believed that honest criticism serves the criticized, the critic, and those witnessing the process.

So I LOVE that Dean decided to specifically address one of my criticisms.

I questioned Dean’s assertion that “Google’s search results are emblematic of an approaching crisis with information overload”.

Dean writes:

Google most certainly is emblematic (a visible symbol) of information overload, and in fact is the information specialist’s laboratory for it.

I see honest disagreement here.

I think Google is emblematic of the way that the clever application of technology overcomes “information overload.” The Web is huge, filled with an insane amount of information that is varyingly good, bad, ugly or [fill in your favorite adjective here]. But if one uses Google to search for Google Scholar Dean, the first four results are about Dean Giustini, the author of the UBC Google Scholar Blog. It took typing three words and I found EXACTLY what I was looking for in about 0.51 seconds. To me, this doesn’t paint an image of Google as a symbol of information overload.

Dean continues:

“It’s well-documented throughout the blogosphere that web 2.0 has resulted in too many RSS feeds, too much data and information from disparate sources with little connection to each other.”

First, there are many popular positions (technical, political, philosophical…) expressed in the blogosphere (and elsewhere) that I believe to be wrong-headed, foolish, unwise or silly. I also believe that decisions based on evidence and direct experience tend to get better results than those built on blogosphere buzz and hearsay.

Second, I’m sincerely flabbergasted to hear a librarian (or any information professional) complain that there is “too much data” or “too many RSS feeds”.

“Web 2.0″ doesn’t cause an information glut. What causes an information glut is being an information glutton, taking on more than anyone can reasonably manage. There aren’t too many RSS feeds. Rather, there are users who subscribe to too many RSS feeds. The solution isn’t for less data to exist, the solution is smarter, more selective use of the data. The tools that help us filter and manage the information that we care most about are continuing to improve in power and sophistication.

The feeds I subscribe to are so carefully chosen and filtered that I started to worry about missing out on serendipitous discovery of information I didn’t know I needed. I remedied this by using feeds from the social bookmarking of medical librarians (and other beloved medical/technology information nerds) to keep an eye on what they find interesting. In this way, the tools that Dean sees as contributing to the “information glut” open me up to new ideas, thoughts, and resources that I would otherwise not have found. With the smart use of my aggregator, I can browse these quickly and easily, discarding what doesn’t suit my interests.

Dean also writes:

“99% of the information that we are finding in Google is irrelevant to medicine.”

Sure, but I’ve never heard a single physician claim Google is irrelevant to Medicine. On the contrary, many talk about how frequently they use it. Meanwhile, 99.99% of what’s findable via PubMed is irrelevant to a particular healthcare information need. So what?

Meanwhile, turnabout is absolutely fair play, and Dean reciprocates by sharing some criticism of my own writing. Because I’m really enjoying the direct discussion and believe in the dialectical process, I’m going to address each of his criticisms.

Dean writes:

“If you have some different ideas on where the web is, why don’t you write your own piece?”

I will absolutely be pleased to write an Op-Ed on the Web and health information at the invitation of the first prestigious medical journal which invites me to do so.

I’d might use the opportunity to demystify buzzwords, clear up popular misconceptions and/or call for a new sort of rigor in the way that writers in medicine and libraries use technology buzzwords in order to better empower each other and those whose needs they serve.

I could alternately suggest practical ways in which existing technologies could be leveraged to expand or improve information services for clinical patrons.

Dean writes:

“One thing about David’s blogging is that he doesn’t explore the social or cultural context for all the tools he introduces.”

That’s usually true. After all, I’m neither a sociologist nor a cultural anthropologist.

I usually talk about how Web tools might be applied in the setting of a medical library. That’s sort of what this blog is for- and I’ve said that from the very first post.

I run a hospital library and I solve problems that hospital-based users experience while using technology. I write about the things that interest me and that I think will interest others who do similar work and face similar problems. That’s what defines the general scope of this blog- and I’m happy with it.

Dean writes:

“It’s much harder to place information technologies in some context than it is to merely announce that you’ve found a new tool worth exploring.”

Although I really do think it is important and useful just to share the existence of tools that I think may be of interest or use to other medical libraryfolk, I often provide context. Some examples:

Both Dean and Dr. Ves Dimov (at Clinical Cases and Images) seem to think that I want to replace “Web 2.0″ with some other term.

Dr. Dimov writes:

David seems to suggest the alternative term “Web Geekery” which does not sound much better than “Web 2.0.”

I have at no time suggested that my complaints with the (mis)use of “Web 2.0″ would be solved by replacing it with ANY other term. “Web Geekery” is just the phrase I use to describe the stuff that interests me.I also refer to the words of smartasses as “smartassery” and refer to the deeds of dumb clucks as “dumbcluckery.” I don’t know why.

I will point out, though, that not a single person has ever needed me to explain what I mean by “Web geekery.”

For the record, Ves- I don’t think there was anything wrong with your description of “Web 2.0 and Medicine” in 2005. You were talking about applying the trends O’Reilly described with “Web 2.0″ to the needs of medicine. Still, I dearly hope that many of the current uses of “2.0”, “3.0” and (yes, really!) “Web 4.0″ will go away. The metaphor threatens to outgrow and eat what it was supposed to represent.

Jan 09

Medical Blogs, Voting and Hyperemesis

When I thanked Rachel for nominating me in MedGadget’s 2007 Annual Medical Weblogs Awards, I didn’t consider the possibility that my blog would end up a finalist in the category of Best Medical Technologies/Informatics Weblog.

That’s really flattering because I subscribe to and read the other four nominees- they’re all absolutely worth your time and attention.

If you’re into this sort of thing and aren’t already so tired of news about the race for the U.S. Presidency that the very mention of the word “vote” makes you want to hurlUseful word that political pundits should start using to describe the feelings of American voters faced with the current slate of candidates: Hyperemesis. Dr. Sanjay Gupta should please feel free to teach this word to Wolf Blitzer., head over there and vote for one of the five.

There are poor choices to be made among the presidential candidates, but not among these five blogs. I still doubt I stand a snowball’s chance of winning- but it is an absolute lock that the winner will be a very good blog.

Next year, though, I’d like to see two or three MedLib Blogs in the list of nominees.

This year’s nominees: