14/n The paper which he co-authored is, I suppose, a matter for discussion – perhaps @LeaMerone and I were presumptuous in reading “selection bias is likely...” as an explicit warning against extrapolating to the entire population of LA County
-
-
25/n Imagine reading this as a PhD student at Stanford. This is a senior faculty member telling these students that no matter what work they do, their opinions will always come second to professors Not what I would hope the scientific discourse to be
Show this thread -
26/n This issue is not a new one by a long shot.
@hertzpodcast covered the issues that PhD students face several times in great detail – I recommend you listenhttps://everythinghertz.com/96Show this thread -
27/n I could point out that our paper was reviewed by several very senior epis before we submitted it (including one of the most senior epis in Australia), but that they did not feel they contributed enough to add their names – perhaps this would’ve saved me a tongue-lashing
Show this thread -
28/n But the point is that we should not have to have Big Fancy Professors on our paper for it to be considered on its own merits. I’m sure we could have twisted our colleagues’ arms, but we did not think that a professor would stoop to our PhDs as a means of attack
Show this thread -
29/n I will be writing to the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. Given that the immediate past Editor In Chief was one professor John Ioannidis, I’m not sure it will do much good, but at least I will have my saypic.twitter.com/oJ6qTSvHoS
Show this thread -
30/n But for anyone reading this who is mentoring PhD students, particularly people at Stanford, I would suggest strongly that you check in and assure them that you do indeed find their opinions and perspectives useful
Show this thread -
31/n As to the paper itself? There are obviously more issues – covered here in depth by
@AtomsksSanakan – but oddly enough there are also places where Prof Ioannidis and I agree about our paperhttps://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/1375935382139834373?s=20 …
Show this thread -
32/n Perhaps that is because many of the issues he raises about our meta-analysis are pointed out by ourselves in our discussion. Regardless, it would perhaps have been interesting to discuss these in the Journal if not for the unfortunate attacks
Show this thread -
33/n Oddly enough, I think that the personal nature of the attack has effectively “silenced” criticism, at least in the EJCI. I do not think I would ever trust the editors of a journal that published attacks such as this and I’m not going to submit an official letter in response
Show this thread -
34/n That being said, it’s worth noting that I’m not the only person being targeted here.
@LeaMerone, my co-author and a spectacular public health physician, is also being derided for still working on her (I believe) 4th postgraduate degreeShow this thread -
35/n More broadly, I think that this sort of punching down is truly unacceptable in academic debate. It is unprofessional, unscientific, and quite depressing to see
Show this thread -
36/n Thanks again for every person who has reached out. I cannot express how much it means to me to have the support of such wonderful people as all of you
Show this thread -
37/ One other thing - I do not think it is reasonable to infer from Prof Ioannidis' behaviour to anyone else. I know some of his former colleagues and students and they are all lovely people and excellent researchers
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.