Skip to content
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • Moments Moments Moments, current page.

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
gorskon's profile
David Gorski, MD, PhD
David Gorski, MD, PhD
David Gorski, MD, PhD
Verified account
@gorskon

Tweets

David Gorski, MD, PhDVerified account

@gorskon

Surgeon/scientist promoting science in medicine and exposing quackery. Editor of Science-Based Medicine. My opinions do NOT represent those of my employers.

Michigan, USA
sciencebasedmedicine.org
Joined October 2009

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Mark Hoofnagle‏ @MarkHoofnagle 6 Oct 2018
      Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @gorskon @RealPeerReview

      We fully understand there are predatory publishers with low standards of peer review. We understand shoddy work gets done, not every PhD thesis is nobel-worthy. It’s not an excuse to dismiss entire fields - I could find you as much shitty biology in bogus pay for play journals.

      3 replies 0 retweets 11 likes
    2. Muscaria‏ @conazole 6 Oct 2018
      Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @gorskon @RealPeerReview

      Except that the journals these papers were published in are not predatory journals but first quartile journals with reasonably high impact factors... And that some reviewers gave very positive feedback of articles that are essentially devoid of any sense...

      1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
    3. Mark Hoofnagle‏ @MarkHoofnagle 6 Oct 2018
      Replying to @conazole @gorskon @RealPeerReview

      Yep, and I spent half my time in grad school refuting a paper published in Nature Medicine? So what? Impact factor is no protection from lazy peer review.

      4 replies 0 retweets 8 likes
    4. David Gorski, MD, PhD‏Verified account @gorskon 6 Oct 2018
      Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @conazole @RealPeerReview

      Yep. And I blog about crappy papers in high impact journals all the time. Indeed, some high impact journals can be more prone to crappy papers because they try so hard to publish research on the bleeding edge, which more often turns out to be wrong.

      2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes
    5. Debunking Denialism‏ @debunkdenialism 6 Oct 2018
      Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle and

      Wasn't many of these fake article also rejected by journals they were submitted to? Seems like the authors want to downplay this. https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/grievance-studies-hoax-not-academic-scandal.html …

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    6. Muscaria‏ @conazole 6 Oct 2018
      Replying to @debunkdenialism @gorskon and

      I think 6 of the 20 submitted were rejected. 6 or 7 were published, and the other ones were being peer-reviewed when the hoax was exposed.

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    7. Debunking Denialism‏ @debunkdenialism 6 Oct 2018
      Replying to @conazole @gorskon and

      For comparison, hoaxers have gotten over 120 computer-generated nonsense papers published in computer science. Would the authors of this present hoax reject computer science as hopelessly unscientific and plagued by ideology? I think not. https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763 …

      1 reply 7 retweets 13 likes
    8. Craig Good: vaccinated and masked‏ @clgood 6 Oct 2018
      Replying to @debunkdenialism @gorskon and

      If these had been peer reviewed it would be another story.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    9. Debunking Denialism‏ @debunkdenialism 6 Oct 2018
      Replying to @clgood @gorskon and

      Debunking Denialism Retweeted Debunking Denialism

      I linked several other cases where papers were peer-reviewed. https://twitter.com/debunkdenialism/status/1048616888983584769 … So do you think anticancer research is bullshit as a field just because hoax papers about it has been published? I doubt you do, and that shows your bias.

      Debunking Denialism added,

      Debunking Denialism @debunkdenialism
      Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @conazole and 2 others
      >150 journals accepted fake paper about anticancer properties of a substance from lichens. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full … Three journals published a paper based on Rick and Morty. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3km5j8/scientist-published-papers-based-on-rick-and-morty-to-expose-predatory-academic-journals … Some journals publishes fake paper based on star wars. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2017/07/22/predatory-journals-star-wars-sting/ …
      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
    10. Craig Good: vaccinated and masked‏ @clgood 7 Oct 2018
      Replying to @debunkdenialism @gorskon and

      Fields that produce scientific results aren't bullshit, even if peer review sometimes fails. I'm not yet convinced that grievance studies even are science.

      3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
      David Gorski, MD, PhD‏Verified account @gorskon 7 Oct 2018
      Replying to @clgood @debunkdenialism and

      I do not find your parroting of James Lindsay's made up pejorative "grievance studies" to describe these fields as persuasive.

      12:33 PM - 7 Oct 2018
      • 8 Likes
      • Debunking Denialism Dr. Katja Thieme 👀 Colinski MD Peep-Stone Joe David Gorski, MD, PhD Rohan Gaiswinkler Frances Acorn Dr. Chim Richalds
      5 replies 0 retweets 8 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Mark Hoofnagle‏ @MarkHoofnagle 7 Oct 2018
          Replying to @gorskon @clgood and

          Grievance studies is a pejorative like feminazi, an attempt to snidely take down ideas that the authors can’t challenge in the literature, so they resort to hoaxing and sliming the whole field with the ludicrous actions of a few.

          3 replies 1 retweet 9 likes
        3. Sam Quint‏ @Flintcoin 7 Oct 2018
          Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @gorskon and

          You can state the same premise over and over again, but that does not prove it as absolutely true.

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. End of conversation
        1. New conversation
        2. arclight‏ @arclight 7 Oct 2018
          Replying to @gorskon @clgood and

          Note also that plenty of fields "that produce scientific results" are duped by bad actors as @RetractionWatch shows on a depressingly regular basis. I've found speculative (aka bullshit) results uncritically cited as gospel in engineering texts that should know better

          2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
        3. arclight‏ @arclight 7 Oct 2018
          Replying to @arclight @gorskon and

          Citations available upon request. Not that anyone cares about finer details of material property data and the baffling world of molecular modeling. It's not even my field and I found issues just by verify references. #oddlyenoughitactuallyisrocketscience

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. End of conversation
        1. New conversation
        2. Craig Good: vaccinated and masked‏ @clgood 7 Oct 2018
          Replying to @gorskon @debunkdenialism and

          That's OK. Twitter is all about short hand.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. David Gorski, MD, PhD‏Verified account @gorskon 7 Oct 2018
          Replying to @clgood @debunkdenialism and

          Even shorthand that deceives, apparently.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. Show replies
        1. New conversation
        2. Craig Good: vaccinated and masked‏ @clgood 7 Oct 2018
          Replying to @gorskon @debunkdenialism and

          OK, looking at more replies: I don't know who James Lindsay is, and I wasn't parroting anything. If people can provide evidence why this is a baseless pejorative I'll drop it. I didn't know. Still open to evidence that these fields are real science. Skeptical.

          2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        3. Jason Davies‏ @JasonPtrDavies 19 Oct 2018
          Replying to @clgood @gorskon and

          Why should people prove it to you? Isn’t it obvious it’s pejorative? If I said you were a moron would it become your job to prove otherwise?

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. End of 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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2021 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info