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/961 reply 19 retweets 395 likesShow 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
2 replies 10 retweets 435 likesShow 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
1 reply 18 retweets 643 likesShow 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
3 replies 24 retweets 637 likesShow 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
3 replies 28 retweets 645 likesShow this thread -
Health Nerd Retweeted Atomsk's Sanakan
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 …Health Nerd added,
Atomsk's Sanakan @AtomsksSanakan1/J John Ioannidis published an article defending his low estimate of COVID-19's fatality rate. It contains so many distortions that I'll try something I've never done on Twitter for a paper: Go thru distortions page-by-page. This will take awhile.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554 … pic.twitter.com/AyV5RiwQnhShow this thread6 replies 11 retweets 337 likesShow 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
1 reply 4 retweets 203 likesShow 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
5 replies 10 retweets 247 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
You should post an official response, but you can just do it on a preprint server.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
That is an idea. Maybe I'll put one up on OSF, thanks for the suggestion!
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.