Spellcheck error of the week – ‘as despising opticians...’ This got me thinking about alternatives to the way we reference articles.
The problem with references is that the author decides which ones to choose to support any particular claim, and usually with the knowledge that most readers will not check many references. A superscript number is often enough to satisfy the reader that facts have been validated.
Now let’s travel to the future. Here is an excerpt from an online article in Optician 2025. ‘There has been much research into the role of nutrition and its influence on eye health. Research has suggested that a diet rich in anti-oxidants can help minimise progression of AMD.
However, metanalyses still pour doubt on such a diet having any protective effect in the young healthy retina. Omega-3, however, has been shown not have any value, both in adult and paediatric populations.’
This article has been written with the latest ‘fact check’ software. Click on either blue statement and you will see a regularly updated list of relevant and approved references to support these statements. The purple link, however, flags up a contentious statement and this time offers contrary references to this statement.
Software designers are currently working on developing such fact checking software and, in an age of constantly touted ‘fake news’, this should be welcomed. And indeed, in just the same way as spell and grammar checks are performed, why not fact checks? I would hope this approach is introduced in the coming years. And what about the red link? The US spellcheck still does not like my diphthong.