Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
GidMK's profile
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Health Nerd
Verified account
@GidMK

Tweets

Health NerdVerified account

@GidMK

Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him

Sydney, New South Wales
theguardian.com/profile/gideon…
Joined November 2015

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Noah Haber‏ @NoahHaber 12 May 2020

      At least once a day I remember how much I hate the absurdly low word limits in health-related journals. 3,500 (or in today's case, 4,000) is not enough words, and only serves to convey incomplete and misinformative-by-oversimplification publications.

      5 replies 4 retweets 29 likes
      Show this thread
    2. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 12 May 2020
      Replying to @NoahHaber

      Hard disagree. Having worked for a while on both academic and public publications, I find journal word counts are, if anything, not restrictive enough. Longer articles encourage endless waffling, and rarely improve the actual communication imo

      2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes
    3. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 12 May 2020
      Replying to @GidMK @NoahHaber

      The issue is, as I see it, that introduction and discussion are given far greater emphasis by most journals than methodology. We should care more about what people have DONE not what they think is important about those results

      1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes
    4. Noah Haber‏ @NoahHaber 12 May 2020
      Replying to @GidMK

      Agree with your latter absolutely, not so much the former. This may be the problem: 3,500 words is for "communication" to non-researcher decision-makers. But the vast majority of papers aren't even remotely of sufficient quality to be communicated to those decision-makers.

      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
    5. Noah Haber‏ @NoahHaber 12 May 2020
      Replying to @NoahHaber @GidMK

      For those papers that are building evidence but not independently strong enough for direct communication (which is nearly all of them), we need room to explore every nook and cranny, every relevant robustness check, chart, and relevant theoretical concerns.

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    6. Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 12 May 2020
      Replying to @NoahHaber

      Sure, but the word count is rarely used in methods and results. I don't think increasing the word count GENERALLY does much more than add waffling in the discussion about how great the study was and how important it all is

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    7. Noah Haber‏ @NoahHaber 12 May 2020
      Replying to @GidMK

      Hard disagree :). For reference, many fields (I default to econ) have papers that are about twice as many words on average, with a vastly higher proportion of it spent on methods and results, and are still denser than health journals.

      2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
    8. Noah Haber‏ @NoahHaber 12 May 2020
      Replying to @NoahHaber @GidMK

      There's an interesting causal question about what would happen if the 3,500 word limit was lifted overnight (I think you'd be right in the short run, wrong in the long run).

      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
    9. Peter Tennant (on holiday)‏ @PWGTennant 12 May 2020
      Replying to @NoahHaber @GidMK

      There's no need for word counts in the modern age. A paper should be as long as it needs to be, but no longer. Some papers can and should be no more than 2000 words, but others genuinely need 5000-6000 to be properly described. In general methods sections are simply too brief.

      1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes
      Health Nerd‏Verified account @GidMK 12 May 2020
      Replying to @PWGTennant @NoahHaber

      As an optimist, I agree. As someone who works in implementation, I suspect a prescriptive measure is necessary otherwise the standard word count will explode as people err on the side of uncertainty to write longer and longer papers

      3:21 PM - 12 May 2020
      • 3 Likes
      • CookieScience 2/n 🏡 (Martin Vuillème) Noah Haber Peter Tennant (on holiday)
      2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Peter Tennant (on holiday)‏ @PWGTennant 12 May 2020
          Replying to @GidMK @NoahHaber

          Maybe this can be left to the editors and reviewers?! I guess the problem is a lot of scientists are just very poor writers! 🤣

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        3. Dr Elly Howse‏ @ellyhowse 12 May 2020
          Replying to @PWGTennant @GidMK @NoahHaber

          Any health policy paper or qual piece of research definitely needs more than 3500 words. Otherwise it ends up being very superficial.

          1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
        4. Show replies
        1. New conversation
        2. Noah Haber‏ @NoahHaber 12 May 2020
          Replying to @GidMK @PWGTennant

          I propose 12k words. I'll settle for 6k but still be grumpy about it.

          1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
        3. Vivek Das‏ @ivivek87 12 May 2020
          Replying to @NoahHaber @GidMK @PWGTennant

          We should have dynamic online papers like the ones done with many bots. This review was published in 2018 & now it’s under renewal for next update. Pretty dynamic & open source. Will journals do this or accept? 😉🤣 https://greenelab.github.io/deep-review/ 

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        4. Show replies

      Loading seems to be taking a while.

      Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2021 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info