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/96
-
Show 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 -
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 degree3 replies 12 retweets 274 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
Also he is wrong - I have published reviews here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32303469/ and here https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-2289077772/view … And I am a physician..... so to call me only a PhD is misleading
2 replies 10 retweets 67 likes
I think the thing that makes me most furious is how he's turned a bit of a tiff into a personal attack on you as well
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
Science should be free of personal attacks. Also I’m not sure I’m in a place for handling this right now. It’s been a long time stranded across the planet and my dad is having surgery tomorrow.....pic.twitter.com/8Uk5IdhOpG
4 replies 0 retweets 22 likes - Show replies
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.