A fascinating COVID-19 pipeline that I had not thought about much is woeful, heavily-biased preprints of studies making their way into meta-analyses and being used in treatment protocols I reckon it's a very big problem
-
-
That is sort of the point of the review process isn't it? To at the very least filter out the real crap?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
better to look at a collection of studies, prioritizing published over preprints but still considering all if arguments are soundhttps://twitter.com/M1tchRosenthal/status/1405633379731652610?s=20 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Seems like an attempt at manipulation of science by dodgy dealings. If a preprint is so good, most journals would fast track the review process and give us actionable results
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This needs illustrative examples!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I would like to think that before you put study results in a metaanalysis you rate the risk of bias. Studies with critical risk of bias could then be excluded. I know I'm wrong though. But peer review is also (unfortunately) not neccessarily equal to high quality research.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I would argue a pre-print that hasnt gone peer review is inferior (although this does not suggest any wrongdoing in the paper or that the results arent good) just that peer review is such a key foundation of good science.
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.