The simple fact is that our current system for generating and correcting evidence has not handled the incredibly tight timeframes of Covid in any reasonable way
-
-
Show this thread
-
I think this story about a paper in Scientific Reports exemplifies the issue The authors and editors did everything RIGHT as far as traditional academia goes. And yet, it was a massive failure in many wayspic.twitter.com/PKgNT89rCJ
Show this thread -
If
@lonnibesancon,@goescarlos, others and myself are right, this paper may have been used to drive policies that killed 10,000s Meanwhile, we're cheerfully having a polite academic chinwag with our colleaguesShow this thread -
"Hello old bean, we think your paper that's being used to change public health policy might be disastrously wrong" "Good chap I most heartily disagree. Let us examine this question over the next 12 months in detail" NOT GOOD ENOUGH
Show this thread -
Moreover, the rewards for people who raise issues with published work are threats and mockery, while publishing bad research generally has a POSITIVE impact on people's careers
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.