|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
Raere posted:I've also heard that rapid antigen tests are a reasonable approximator of infectiousness, but not foolproof. I'm not sure how accurate that wisdom is though. If you’re looking for the biggest reason Covid response has failed in the US, it’s this. Forget all the chuds and the financial interests. We are two years into the pandemic and there aren’t even clear, science-based government guidelines on when people can responsibly be around others after an infection. Even conscientious people can’t “do their own research” and get good comprehensive answers. It’s insane.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
I'm "cleared for work" for Monday as long as I stay improved (I'm at about 75% back. I never had a fever.), but due to childcare issues, I don't think I'll be back until Wednesday and I'll be wearing an N95 the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
Denmark - 3 February 2022 So the Jan 31 spike is dropping off like prior Mondays... I am wondering if the last lingering delta victims are the ones clearing out the ICU and ventilators by simply dying.  If this wave was Delta, I just have to think ICU would have been SWAMPED. New ICU biweekly bed report should be out tomorrow. Table 1. Actual and Reported Denmark COVID Cases reported per day pre:Actual Reported New Total Date Cases Cases Reinf. Hosp. Hosp. ICU Vent Dead ============================================================================================== Feb 03 --- 44,225 2,513 365 1,116 27 (+1) 12 (-4) 21 Feb 02 18,868 55,001 2,992 343 1,092 26 (-2) 16 (+2) 20 Feb 01 43,506 45,366 2,515 337 1,070 28 (-4) 14 (-1) 15 Jan 31 53,289 29,084 1,478 255 1,028 32 (+1) 15 (+0) 17 Jan 30 33,064 36,196 2,055 231 948 31 (-4) 15 (-4) 21 Jan 29 28,305 41,083 2,332 271 922 35 (+2) 19 (+0) 17 Jan 28 35,944 53,655 3,263 305 967 33 (-4) 19 (-3) 26 Jan 27 39,067 51,033 3,119 318 955 37 (-3) 22 (-3) 18 Jan 26 41,695 46,747 3,028 298 938 40 (-4) 25 (-3) 14 Jan 25 48,640 43,734 2,856 318 918 44 (+1) 28 (-1) 14 Jan 24 53,663 40,348 2,501 242 894 43 (+1) 29 (+2) 13 Jan 23 38,017 42,018 2,755 215 813 42 (-3) 27 (-1) 12 Jan 22 34,713 36,120 2,285 220 781 45 (+1) 28 (-1) 25 Jan 21 37,409 46,831 3,160 244 813 44 (-5) 29 (+1) 21 Jan 20 37,420 40,626 2,639 232 825 49 (-1) 28 (-2) 15 Jan 19 37,595 38,759 2,285 248 821 50 (+1) 30 (+1) 16 Jan 18 40,303 33,493 2,002 264 810 49 (-3) 29 (-8) 14 Jan 17 41,486 28,780 1,815 203 802 52 (-7) 37 (-4) 11 Jan 16 28,179 26,169 1,614 159 734 59 (+0) 41 (+1) 16 Jan 15 25,188 25,034 1,644 202 711 59 (-1) 40 (+4) 16 Jan 14 25,883 23,614 1,519 215 757 60 (-4) 36 (-2) 15 Jan 13 23,776 25,751 1,822 194 755 64 (-9) 38 (-8) 20 Jan 12 22,575 24,343 1,614 215 751 73 (+0) 46 (+0) 25 Jan 11 22,656 22,936 1,459 181 754 73 (-1) 46 (-1) 14 Jan 10 23,244 14,414 941 156 777 74 (-3) 47 (-3) 9 Jan 09 16,330 19,248 1,327 126 723 77 (-1) 50 (-2) 14 Jan 08 13,573 12,588 984 161 730 78 (+0) 52 (-1) 28 Jan 07 14,434 18,261 1,482 186 755 78 (-4) 53 (+4) 10 Jan 06 15,417 25,995 2,027 161 756 82 (+2) 47 (-2) 11 Jan 05 17,577 28,283 2,083 204 784 80 (+3) 49 (+2) 15 Jan 04 23,698 23,372 1,701 229 792 77 (+4) 47 (+1) 15 Jan 03* 25,617 8,801 532 169 770 73 (-3) 46 (-4) 5 Jan 02 19,906 7,550 404 163 709 76 (+3) 50 (+1) 15 Jan 01 8,631 20,885 1,049 139 647 73 (+0) 49 (+0) 5 Dec 31 9,728 17,605 1,090 177 641 73 (-2) 49 (-1) 11 Dec 30 19,927 21,403 1,123 178 665 75 (-2) 50 (-2) 9 Dec 29 17,245 23,228 1,205 173 675 77 (+6) 52 (+2) 16 Dec 28 21,955 13,000 670 177 666 71 (+1) 50 (+4) 14 Dec 27 22,616 16,164 639 115 608 70 (-1) 46 (-2) 7 Dec 26 10,965 14,844 644 123 579 71 (-2) 43 (+1) 13 Dec 25 7,853 10,027 463 86 522 73 (-1) 44 (+5) 10 Dec 24 7,054 11,229 527 134 509 74 (+2) 39 (+1) 14 Dec 23 12,605 12,487 613 158 541 72 (+6) 38 (+1) 15 Dec 22 11,591 13,386 531 126 524 66 (-1) 37 (+2) 14 Dec 21 13,011 13,558 501 121 526 67 (+1) 35 (+2) 17 Dec 20 13,288 10,082 --- 85 581 66 (+3) 33 (-2) 8 Dec 19 10,231 8,212 Dec 18 10,049 8,594 Dec 17 10.614 11,194 Dec 16 10,171 9,999 Dec 15 10,775 8,773 --- 96 508 66 (+0) 43 (-3) 9 Dec 13 10,294 7,799 --- 61 480 64 (-1) 42 (+0) 9 Dec 12 6,986 5,989 --- 82 468 65 (+5) 42 (+6) 9 Dec 08 6,560 6,629 --- 72 461 66 (-1) 38 (-1) 7 Dec 01 4,464 5,120 --- 88 439 35 (+1) 35 (+1) 14 Table 2: ICU Bed Usage, Weekly (reported every 2 weeks) pre:Date Bed Availability ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 January 328 ICU beds, 54 COVID, 66 available 10 January 331 ICU beds, 72 COVID, 29 available 03 January 331 ICU beds, 76 COVID, 32 available 27 December 316 ICU beds, 71 COVID, 62 available 20 December 317 ICU beds, 60 COVID, 59 available 13 December 319 ICU beds, 64 COVID, 39 available 06 December 310 ICU beds, 67 COVID, 10 available <-- squeaky bum time here 29 November 318 ICU beds, 61 COVID, 25 available https://www.rkkp.dk/kvalitetsdatabaser/databaser/dansk-intensiv-database/resultater/ https://covid19.ssi.dk/overvagningsdata/download-fil-med-overvaagningdata https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/242ec2acc014456295189631586f1d26 https://covid19.ssi.dk/virusvarianter/delta-pcr
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:I'm curious why you ask? Are there particular reasons it should/shouldn't be a stickied thread? Weird! Never mind. I thought it was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Weird! Never mind. I thought it was. To offer a little more transparency, we had a conversation about whether having the Covid thread stickied was still worthwhile the week before the feedback thread. We all pretty much agreed it was time to unsticky, but decided to wait until the feedback thread to see if it came up/what the community thought. Since it got specifically brought up and asked about by at least one poster, we went ahead and unstickied it (along with several other stickied threads).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
Woot, managed to get a 4th shot before my trip next week.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1489262385365852169
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Woot, managed to get a 4th shot before my trip next week. Why? The thread is unstickied. That means Covid is over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:Why? The thread is unstickied. That means Covid is over. Hoping for superpowers
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:If you’re looking for the biggest reason Covid response has failed in the US, it’s this. If it ain't the case, or if there's a better way, it'd be good to know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
I want to fire Eric Topol into the sun. By contrast: https://twitter.com/thedavidcrosby/status/1488946909909688320
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
This is true of preprints in general. "Peer review" in the form of mysterious reviewers with axes to grind does much less to increase quality than people think. Sure, there's a lot of lovely preprints out there, but there also are a lot of extremely lovely peer-reviewed papers - especially because most scientists have no loving idea of how statistics works. Preprints are great. Everyone, please put your preprints on Zenodo, ArXiv, etc. You will also get more citations, because people can actually read your loving paper. edit: Discendo Vox posted:I want to fire Eric Topol into the sun. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Feb 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
David Crosby is a famous folk rock musician, member of the Byrds and Crosby Stills and Nash, who famously collaborated several times with Neil Young. What David Crosby and the other members of the group are doing is good. The article Topol is promoting is dogshit.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Feb 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:David Crosby is a famous folk rock musician, member of the Byrds and Crosby Stills and Nash, who famously collaborated several times with Neil Young. What David Crosby and the other members of thr group are doing is good. The article Topol is promoting is dogshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Well, right now we're going with 10 days, which is - we thought - a science-based guideline. I work in healthcare and was pushed back into work at 5 with ‘improving symptoms.’ No test. I asked the PA why no test and she said “everyone is still testing positive at 5 days.”  that isn’t a problem?State guidelines deviate from federal. Do I get an outside test? Is it from symptoms or positive test? Which symptoms qualify? When I am infectious or not? Do I quarantine from the end of my daughters quarantine or from the beginning of her symptoms? It’s been a wild ride. And CDC had released and retracted several guidelines. There’s been minimal consensus and it’s very frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1489281154549264389?s=21 I went to a Korean BBQ place last Sunday for the first time in about two months of avoiding indoor maskless activities because the numbers in NYC dropped dramatically. I’m still hesitant to resume social/civic life. I like that places in Manhattan have been strict about checking vaccination cards and don’t want that to go away, and I don’t mind wearing an N95 in stores.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
MadJackal posted:https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1489281154549264389?s=21 Except they haven't as witnessed by Sarah Palin's Typhoid Marying all over the NYC restaurant scene despite being a high profile confirmed positive with covid individual who probably announces who she is whenever she enters an establishment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I want to fire Eric Topol into the sun. Why? Preprints from good universities with good principal investigators have been pretty much spot on. Like, past a point it's pretty trivial to draw a line between a preprint that's a literature review from a nobody at a rightwing-funded think tank for consideration at Koch's Firearm Lubrication (And Suddenly T Cells, Too!) Monthly versus stuff out of the absolute top of the T cell research field, at The University of Chicago, for serious consideration in Science and Nature. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Feb 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Why?  Judging good preprints from bad is no different than judging good ~*~published peer-reviewed~*~ papers from bad. There's no better peer review that having the paper opened up to all peers, rather than a mysterious, shadowy group of reviewers with their own axes to grind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
No. Pre-publication peer review, when conducted properly, prevents the spread of low-quality or misinformed research. A major problem throughout the pandemic, including in this thread, has been the proliferation and remediation of lovely pre-print research, including for promotional or ideological purposes. This isn't new; there's material on the problem discussed in the resources in the OP. Knowing the source institution is not a substitute for peer review. "the crowd" is not a substitute for review by experts. That there are problems with how different journals currently conduct peer review, and that there is incredible public demand for scientific claims, is not a substitute for the really basic requirements of the critical practice of science.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No. Pre-publication peer review, when conducted properly, prevents the spread of low-quality or misinformed research. A major problem throughout the pandemic, including in this thread, has been the proliferation and remediation of lovely pre-print research, including for promotional or ideological purposes. This isn't new; there's material on the problem discussed in the resources in the OP. Knowing the source institution is not a substitute for peer review. "the crowd" is not a substitute for review by experts. That there are problems with how different journals currently conduct peer review, and that there is incredible public demand for scientific claims, is not a substitute for the really basic requirements of the critical practice of science. https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-020-00101-3 I've also got some very bad news about the quality of peer-reviewed results in many fields, especially medicine. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Feb 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:
cat botherer posted:This is actually incorrect, according to most empirical research. The difference is small, and hardly an endorsement of the current ossified and exclusionary process. Peer review doesn't have to mean journal editors and reviewers, who tend to be established and old. Open preprints and open science allow more to participate, reviewing in the open. Worth noting that this study looked at articles from the year 2016 and not during the timespan of COVID pandemic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:On what do you base the claim that peer review is conducted by "mysterious, shadowy groups of reviewers with their own axes to grind?" cat botherer fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Feb 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:This is actually incorrect, according to most empirical research. You just seem to be asserting this based on received wisdom, with no actual evidence. The difference is small, and hardly an endorsement of the current ossified and exclusionary process. Peer review doesn't have to mean journal editors and reviewers, who tend to be established and old. Open preprints and open science allow more to participate, reviewing in the open. You're wasting your time. Vox's objection to preprints is ideological. Evidence to the contrary merely reinforces the ideology. You might as well go yell at a dog-eared copy of Manufacturing Consent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Reviewers are anonymous, and typically older with tenure. That was a rhetorical flourish. "Science advances one funeral at a time." This is not a controversial thing to say. Why would you think preprint quality would suddenly drop because of COVID, despite most all research in many fields over long span of time showing peer review has minimal effect on quality and conclusions? The onus is on you guys here, I've got evidence on my side. You don't really have a lot of evidence for your claims about reviewers, I'd like to see your sources on that beyond hand waving
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
For all that it matters to the subject at hand, the reviewers could be literal russet potatoes and not change the conclusion that, speaking towards the evidence presented thus far, the peer review process is of marginal benefit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
Considering we had articles.posted in here such as the one that covid causes your brain to shrink, that it causes Parkinson's, that it causes the body to melt, that it is the cause of my left pinky becoming sentient and trying to murder me. Peer review is important, also not reading jackshit on Twitter. And the guys results on covid papers? 82 percent passed validity after further review. That's not a great number, and there's a reason we use peer review.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
Viruses have been implicated with Alzheimer’s (brain shrink) and Parkinson’s, so yea seems probable. E: Downgraded risk assessment from likely to probable. nomad2020 fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Feb 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Reviewers are anonymous, and typically older with tenure. That was a rhetorical flourish. "Science advances one funeral at a time." This is not a controversial thing to say. Why would you think preprint quality would suddenly drop because of COVID, despite most all research in many fields over long span of time showing peer review has minimal effect on quality and conclusions? The onus is on you guys here, I've got evidence on my side. nomad2020 posted:For all that it matters to the subject at hand, the reviewers could be literal russet potatoes and not change the conclusion that, speaking towards the evidence presented thus far, the peer review process is of marginal benefit. Could we perhaps see some sources on how meaningless peer review is or are we supposed to just take your word that it is self-evident? What evidence? Discendo Vox posted:I want to fire Eric Topol into the sun. Conversely, a tweet by *checks notes* apparently noted Covid and scientific research authority David Crosby is not a rebuttal of the article about pre-prints, and if you have specific arguments about why that article is bad beyond "Eric Topol bad" I'd like to see them. nomad2020 posted:Viruses have been implicated with Alzheimer’s (brain shrink) and Parkinson’s, so yea seems probable. The specific studies that UCS Hellmaker mentioned show nothing of the sort, and often included closing summaries from their researchers saying as much. Didn't stop twitter doctors from running with sensational claims about them, such as "young healthy people getting parkinson's from covid" or "airborne aids," neither of which are even close to what the studies showed in reality. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Feb 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:This is actually incorrect, according to most empirical research. The difference is small, and hardly an endorsement of the current ossified and exclusionary process. Peer review doesn't have to mean journal editors and reviewers, who tend to be established and old. Open preprints and open science allow more to participate, reviewing in the open. I already said that defects in the current implementation of peer review are not grounds to justify its rejection. This study does not in any way address the incentive and downstream issues that encourage and elicit harm from the circumvention of peer review. With that out of the way, let's also cover your evidence.
The actual article being promoted in the Economist itself states that as the pandemic has massively increased the spread of preprint research, including its abuse, and, rather than any evidence that its effects have been good, suggests that instead scientists should perform a substitute peer review on twitter. The actual discussion section of the article is saying "wow, it looks like there needs to be something like peer review for these papers, gosh, too bad it's not happening after they're in the wild and spreading misinformation! Again, the fact that current peer review policies are not universally strong means that they should be strengthened, not undone. Even the paper does not draw the conclusion that you do. Professor Beetus posted:Conversely, a tweet by *checks notes* apparently noted Covid and scientific research authority David Crosby is not a rebuttal of the article about pre-prints, and if you have specific arguments about why that article is bad beyond "Eric Topol bad" I'd like to see them. The Crosby tweet was just a separate thing that has happened. Professor Beetus posted:The specific studies that UCS Hellmaker mentioned show nothing of the sort, and often included closing summaries from their researchers saying as much. Didn't stop twitter doctors from running with sensational claims about them, such as "young healthy people getting parkinson's from covid" or "airborne aids," neither of which are even close to what the studies showed in reality. There's a whole genre of simultaneously making a claim or implication in an article, then having a disclaimer further down, because it allows the article to be spread and repeated without the disclaimer. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Feb 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
Levitate posted:You don't really have a lot of evidence for your claims about reviewers, I'd like to see your sources on that beyond hand waving My claims about reviewers are largely self-evident: (a) They are anonymous (b) They are more likely to be older, white, male, straight, and have tenure. This is because reviewers are usually established people in their field, and thus tend to be older and less diverse just due to the demographics of older faculty. (c) They are not immune to biases just because they are magic science people. They can be biased against ideas that conflict with their research. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1016082229411 https://www.nature.com/articles/541455a https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/232868.full.pdf Discendo Vox posted:I already said that defects in the current implementation of peer review are not grounds to justify its rejection. This study does not in any way address the incentive and downstream issues that encourage and elicit harm from the circumvention of peer review. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Feb 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:
I think it's important to distinguish between limitations/flaws/whatever of peer review in academia and the issue of reporting on those papers to the general public, which often turns their conclusions into far more definitive ones than if the paper was read by an expert.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
I don’t have access to the uni library currently to give proper citation, but I’d point people towards the replication crisis as my evidence that the peer review industry is not above scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
nomad2020 posted:I don’t have access to the uni library currently to give proper citation, but I’d point people towards the replication crisis as my evidence. Re: the replication crisis, the lack of open review is a big problem for catching statistical issues. Most scientists are poor statisticians at best, so reviewers are poor at catching statistical errors because they are in the monoculture of whatever field they are in. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/what-proportion-of-cancer-studies-are-reliable/513485/ quote:In 2011, Bayer Healthcare said that its in-house scientists could only validate 25 percent of basic studies in cancer and other conditions. (Drug companies routinely do such checks so they can use the information in those studies as a starting point for developing new drugs.) A year later, Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis from Amgen said that the firm could only confirm the findings in 6 out of 53 landmark cancer papers—just 11 percent. Perhaps, they wrote, that might explain why “our ability to translate cancer research to clinical success has been remarkably low.” https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03691-0
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
You have to admit it's hilarious to post an article advocating open and immediate access to research results that's behind a paywall, and published in a rag famous for not having bylines or really much in the way of any actual subject expertise on their staff.Fritz the Horse posted:Worth noting that this study looked at articles from the year 2016 and not during the timespan of COVID pandemic. Also: quote:Although we cannot be sure that the first preprint version had not undergone peer review before its publication, the most common practice seems to be to post a preprint before or at the moment of submission to a peer-reviewed journal [37]. Is that actually true? The cited paper's abstract says: quote:A bioRxiv user survey found that 42% of authors post their preprints prior to journal submission whereas 37% post concurrently with journal submission. I don't follow bioRxiv but in (astro)physics this varies a lot by subfield. Many papers are submitted to arXiv only after the first review or formal acceptance, and in the latter case of course there's next to no material change in the content of the paper - all that's left is for the copy editor to mainly check formatting (and in my experience, occasionally gently caress something up or not apply changes correctly). cat botherer posted:This is actually incorrect, according to most empirical research. You just seem to be asserting this based on received wisdom, with no actual evidence. The difference is small, and hardly an endorsement of the current ossified and exclusionary process. Peer review doesn't have to mean journal editors and reviewers, who tend to be established and old. Open preprints and open science allow more to participate, reviewing in the open. While there are certainly issues with peer review in most fields (but again, practices vary by subfield and journal), what are you actually advocating here? Reform of the peer review process and predatory journal's practices? Sure. Posting all papers to arXiv upon submission to a journal? Not unreasonable; many people already do that anyway. Submitting preprints prior to submitting to an actual journal? Ehhhh, not so much. Sometimes you get valuable feedback from someone who doesn't end up actually reviewing the paper, but most of the time it's just "you should cite me more", with varying degrees of justification. Relying on preprints that may or may not actually make it into a reputable journal, well, even less so. That paper you cite found a larger difference in the quality of articles from the random samples than the paired one, by the way, which seems to imply that the lower quality preprints were either rejected or spent more time in limbo filtering through journal tiers. I'm not convinced that it actually suggest that peer review is largely useless, so much as that most of the submissions to bioRxiv are reasonable results by credible researchers that are eventually going to be accepted without major changes to the paper's conclusions. Whether that means one should open the bloodgates for anyone to quickly publish time-sensitive results for something like COVID, where there are clear incentives to publish more controversial results than for a randomly-selected bioRxiv topic, well... Potato Salad posted:... for serious consideration in Science and Nature. Again, I don't know about biology, but in physics, Nature has a reputation for favouring flashy and/or noteworthy results, with a little less emphasis on whether they're actually correct or robust. cat botherer posted:That's the best argument for preprints. You can even criticize and review them! Okay? This seems to be arguing for stricter peer review, whether that happens only or not. I'm not sure how it leads to a broader endorsement of pre-prints, though? Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Feb 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:If you’re looking for the biggest reason Covid response has failed in the US, it’s this. Huh? Here are the CDC guidelines quote:
It's pretty straightforward and "science based" doesn't mean you personally agree with it (nor does it mean the guideline is designed so that if 100% of people adhere, nobody leaving isolation will ever be infectious). A bigger problem is people not isolating after a positive test (or when symptomatic and not tested). There are both possible Trump and non Trump reasons for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:My claims about reviewers are largely self-evident: None of this is evidence or showing that peer review is flawed in a way that helps to prevent absolute goddamn poo poo from being released then spread through bad faith. Ivermectin and other covid "cures" and tons of other flash in the pan stuff came from preprints, and peer review exists in order not to gatekeep, but to help ensure that articles arent filled with literaly garbage pushing by bad faith actors trying to push their pet project or actually falsified data.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
eXXon posted:While there are certainly issues with peer review in most fields (but again, practices vary by subfield and journal), what are you actually advocating here? Reform of the peer review process and predatory journal's practices? Sure. Posting all papers to arXiv upon submission to a journal? Not unreasonable; many people already do that anyway. Submitting preprints prior to submitting to an actual journal? Ehhhh, not so much. Sometimes you get valuable feedback from someone who doesn't end up actually reviewing the paper, but most of the time it's just "you should cite me more", with varying degrees of justification. Relying on preprints that may or may not actually make it into a reputable journal, well, even less so. The journal peer review process, in my opinion, is already redundant. Science is done dialectically through citations, etc. That and pre-existing networks of mutual trust establishes credibility independently of the review process. If people like your paper, they will cite it and its ideas will be more influential. One can also make new versions in response to criticism. The people reading your paper should largely be people in your field - drawn from the same population that would be reviewing your paper. UCS Hellmaker posted:None of this is evidence or showing that peer review is flawed in a way that helps to prevent absolute goddamn poo poo from being released then spread through bad faith. Ivermectin and other covid "cures" and tons of other flash in the pan stuff came from preprints, and peer review exists in order not to gatekeep, but to help ensure that articles arent filled with literaly garbage pushing by bad faith actors trying to push their pet project or actually falsified data.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:That's the best argument for preprints. You can even criticize and review them! Peer review EXISTS so that people that work in the field can gatekeep things for obvious flaws, and expecting laypeople to serve as the stewards of what's correct is idiotic in a way that only a twitter injector believes. I fully do not expect lay people to understand the fundamentals of a graduate or post doc paper, and we actively see it with the garbage that the news and twitter makes sensational because they read one line they understand and take it as gospel. Your argument is flawed, and filled with the idea that peerreview is stopping the true truth from being released in order to hide things, and you sincerely need to talk to people that actually have gone through the process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That there are problems with how different journals currently conduct peer review, and that there is incredible public demand for scientific claims That's .... exactly why reputation, institutional quality control, and funding are so important, as I indicated. You're coming across like somebody who is bitter and/or has an ax to grind with people you have successfully sought, interpreted, justified their use of, and were eventually vindicated for utilizing information from extremely high quality preprints from principal investigators at the top of their fields at high-grade institutions. If that's not actually true and you just have a very sharp aversion to preprints, that's understandable if you are an outsider to research, but do please realize that there is not a genuine procedural or scientific quality issue here, especially for the purposes of effortposting on a dead gay comedy form. cat botherer posted:That's the best argument for preprints. You can even criticize and review them!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 20:51
|
|