This has merit.
Allowing for the valid comments above about the quality of research papers.
From my (limited) understanding of how Watson works, is by injesting vast amounts of raw data and then drawing inferance (joining the dots?) between items, and thereby giving pointers to new avenues of reseach.
As pointed out in the main article, the sheer volume of papers, even if only 25% where solid gold research, could one individual be able to take on board that volume of information and work on it in any meaningful way?
Overall +1 for Watson.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
