@FormerAntivax Given your attitude...an egotistical certainty regarding the safety and efficacy of a product which has killed millions and injured tens of millions... you are not to be trusted. You're part of the problem. https://t.co/DJKYtD3Xe4
As the influential twentieth-century statistician Ronald Fisher said: “To consult the statistician after an experiment is finished is often merely to ask him to conduct a post mortem examination. He can perhaps say what the experiment died of.” https://t.c
@Ruud_Heinis @ptrkpmns @lodewijkattema @annstrikje @georgevanhouts @mkeulemans opvatting, maar ook die van medische publicatieplatforms zelf, incl. Nature, The Lancet en BMJ. https://t.co/3KRjDJYJ6z / https://t.co/n0ROrXA5Lm / https://t.co/MaOg5srRf6 https
RT @DrNancyOlivieri: But trust science. More & more "peer-reviewed" articles contain substantial/invalidating errors [... ] that if correct…
But trust science. More & more "peer-reviewed" articles contain substantial/invalidating errors [... ] that if corrected might alter a paper's conclusions" But "after attempting to address [these] errors we had to stop; the work took too much of our ti
RT @RetractionWatch: Relevant to #PRC9 presentation on journals' post-publication critique (and @JAByrneSci's question about whether journa…
RT @RetractionWatch: Relevant to #PRC9 presentation on journals' post-publication critique (and @JAByrneSci's question about whether journa…
RT @RetractionWatch: Relevant to #PRC9 presentation on journals' post-publication critique (and @JAByrneSci's question about whether journa…
RT @RetractionWatch: Relevant to #PRC9 presentation on journals' post-publication critique (and @JAByrneSci's question about whether journa…
RT @niamhpage: This is utterly ridiculous. Another great illustration of why the current approach to scholarly publishing is broken https:/…
This is utterly ridiculous. Another great illustration of why the current approach to scholarly publishing is broken
This is where the term 'Version of Record' becomes problematic as it implies unquestionable content. Plus "Some journals that acknowledged mistakes required a substantial fee to publish our letters: we were asked to spend our research dollars on correcting
RT @RetractionWatch: Relevant to #PRC9 presentation on journals' post-publication critique (and @JAByrneSci's question about whether journa…
RT @RetractionWatch: Relevant to #PRC9 presentation on journals' post-publication critique (and @JAByrneSci's question about whether journa…
RT @RetractionWatch: Relevant to #PRC9 presentation on journals' post-publication critique (and @JAByrneSci's question about whether journa…
RT @RetractionWatch: Relevant to #PRC9 presentation on journals' post-publication critique (and @JAByrneSci's question about whether journa…
RT @beaterast: Alle liker å bli lurt. Mennesker er ikke laget for å finne frem til hva som er sant, er fakta, vi er laget for å fungere sa…
RT @RetractionWatch: Relevant to #PRC9 presentation on journals' post-publication critique (and @JAByrneSci's question about whether journa…
Alle liker å bli lurt. Mennesker er ikke laget for å finne frem til hva som er sant, er fakta, vi er laget for å fungere sammen i samfunn, og da kommer både store og små livsløgn er godt med. Derfor var det helt avgjørende å lage strenge regler når vi sk
RT @RetractionWatch: Relevant to #PRC9 presentation on journals' post-publication critique (and @JAByrneSci's question about whether journa…
Relevant to #PRC9 presentation on journals' post-publication critique (and @JAByrneSci's question about whether journals charge APCs for such critiques): David Allison et al's commentary on what happened when they tried to correct the record https://t.co/
@Mary91123008 @_sydneybristow @KristiRaik Good luck with holding them responsible for erroneous papers 😉: https://t.co/7WimlQlUcI
@n_g_laskowski The ease with which false findings are published is well known: https://t.co/aQNPvvPhu7 As is the resistance of scientific journals to take minimal efforts to correct even demonstrated errors: https://t.co/n8B8nSN5a9 This should reduce
An interesting article in Nature about how the scientific method in actual practice is not as self-correcting as we would expect/hope it would be. https://t.co/tGLCDtCOD8
@jianchengdu Not much progress since https://t.co/51nmeOgqZ8
RT @mattjhodgkinson: Why does retraction take so long, asks @ivanoransky. Sometimes obvious issues, including after an institutional invest…
Why does retraction take so long, asks @ivanoransky. Sometimes obvious issues, including after an institutional investigation, can take years for journals to act on. Examples: * https://t.co/scFCt2M0Zh * https://t.co/Hebeqiu8b1 * https://t.co/RubDXqCqAa #C
Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors https://t.co/TNkO3pUGSy
@jallepap @PaulBieniasz @Merz @carlzimmer @apoorva_nyc @jonykipnis @HelenBranswell @sciencecohen @KatherineJWu Most flawed papers are never retracted. And retracted papers continued to be cited. Selected references, happy to provide more: https://t.co/WiZx
Just how error-prone and self-correcting is science? In the face of popular articles proclaiming that #science is stumbling, this episode was an affirmation that science is self-correcting. Mistakes in peer-reviewed papers are easy to find but hard to fix!
RT @hommel_b: https://t.co/VwNYxxN4IK Het aardig is: er is geen standaard procedure om een artikel teruggetrokken te krijgen. Lees mee ove…
RT @hommel_b: https://t.co/VwNYxxN4IK Het aardig is: er is geen standaard procedure om een artikel teruggetrokken te krijgen. Lees mee ove…
RT @hommel_b: https://t.co/VwNYxxN4IK Het aardig is: er is geen standaard procedure om een artikel teruggetrokken te krijgen. Lees mee ove…
RT @hommel_b: https://t.co/VwNYxxN4IK Het aardig is: er is geen standaard procedure om een artikel teruggetrokken te krijgen. Lees mee ove…
RT @hommel_b: https://t.co/VwNYxxN4IK Het aardig is: er is geen standaard procedure om een artikel teruggetrokken te krijgen. Lees mee ove…
RT @hommel_b: https://t.co/VwNYxxN4IK Het aardig is: er is geen standaard procedure om een artikel teruggetrokken te krijgen. Lees mee ove…
Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors : Nature News & Comment https://t.co/dAptME3Okk
Interesting article: I wasn't aware that authors of expressions of concern are asked to pay for publishing. Nor did I know of retraction fees...
Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors : Nature News & Comment https://t.co/pQugvCW8xt
RT @MicrobiomDigest: DA: Science is not a magical process that corrects itself. It is dependent on the science community to correct it. Unf…
RT @MicrobiomDigest: DA: Science is not a magical process that corrects itself. It is dependent on the science community to correct it. Unf…
DA: Science is not a magical process that corrects itself. It is dependent on the science community to correct it. Unfortunately, editors and authors are very resistant to corrections or retractions. https://t.co/hcuJF9BdKx
@glupyan I am not sure if it is a widely adopted label but some communities refer to this error as the DINS (differences in nominal significance) error https://t.co/U9QVqKcpWn
論文の間違いを指摘するための6つの障壁 #再現性 1. 編集者はすぐに適切な対応をできない(またはしたがらない) 2. 多くの雑誌は間違いを指摘するための方法を明記していない 続く(1/2) Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors : Nature News & Comment https://t.co/uXjqEbJndo @NatureNewsより
RT @hildabast: @raphavisses @BorisBarbour This is the one I always cite for this, by David Allison &co https://t.co/I7QS0bbz1U
@raphavisses @BorisBarbour This is the one I always cite for this, by David Allison &co https://t.co/I7QS0bbz1U
Old but gold. https://t.co/J7ewtSiaH5
Journals don’t always respond on time https://t.co/Um31zA8acb is a sobering read
RT @ajshackman: oldy, goody - https://t.co/iSX04QbmPl
RT @ajshackman: oldy, goody - https://t.co/iSX04QbmPl
oldy, goody - https://t.co/iSX04QbmPl
With best wishes for all researchers for the New Year. Let's do everything to make 2020 the year of Open Science.
RT @JoeHilgard: Really feeling this cartoon today (from https://t.co/0RpTaBuYHY) https://t.co/bqVxlB7ugh
RT @JoeHilgard: Really feeling this cartoon today (from https://t.co/0RpTaBuYHY) https://t.co/bqVxlB7ugh
RT @JoeHilgard: Really feeling this cartoon today (from https://t.co/0RpTaBuYHY) https://t.co/bqVxlB7ugh
RT @JoeHilgard: Really feeling this cartoon today (from https://t.co/0RpTaBuYHY) https://t.co/bqVxlB7ugh
Really feeling this cartoon today (from https://t.co/0RpTaBuYHY) https://t.co/bqVxlB7ugh
Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors. How journal and authors dealt with corrections? And waht can be done about it.. https://t.co/uNmsc4aN8c Good read!
@MaunaKala No discipline is exempt from making errors but if it is intentionally overlooked it is research misconduct and it needs to result in immediate termination. https://t.co/RGt95gWs4s
Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors https://t.co/Yv7nq2rvzS
@TenanATC Have you read this @nature Comment about how difficult it is to get editors to respond to concerns about misleading data, improper research methods / stats, etc. (esp. #nutrition research). LTE's are hard to publish and often ineffective 😡 @Nat
statistician Ronald Fisher (pictured) said: “To consult the statistician after an experiment is finished is often merely to ask him to conduct a post mortem examination. He can perhaps say what the experiment died of” https://t.co/Syf0gDLRvn #nature #scien
RT @SelFdz: @Embnet_Global @iscbsc @SoIBio @ELIXIREurope @CHARME4EU Big point made on this talk: "Only 50% of research data are useful to t…
@Embnet_Global @iscbsc @SoIBio @ELIXIREurope @CHARME4EU Big point made on this talk: "Only 50% of research data are useful to the community". We can and should do better. Lost of emphasis also on lack of quality assessment systems for data produced by scie
Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors https://t.co/2CdOnU3ye1 via @rightrelevance
RT @stephensenn: @GregorGorjanc @AndrewPGrieve @wdonald_1985 My impression is that many scientists who treat rodents in cages alike (for ob…
RT @stephensenn: @GregorGorjanc @AndrewPGrieve @wdonald_1985 My impression is that many scientists who treat rodents in cages alike (for ob…
@GregorGorjanc @AndrewPGrieve @wdonald_1985 My impression is that many scientists who treat rodents in cages alike (for obvious practical reasons) don't correct for this. It is error 1 of 3 common ones outlined in Allison et al https://t.co/LJXhm0CPbY
@METRICStanford @EricTopol Research does need to be fixed! But correcting errors in scientific publications is a surprisingly challenging and often unrewarding task, as this great @nature piece points out https://t.co/FrSIVEwumH @NatureNews
@keithlovesfood @davidludwigmd @heymsfield We wrote several. Bland and Altman address it. We included it in "Tragedy of Errors". https://t.co/iYaP0ZaswV Statistical inference is hard and unintuitive, so we keep at it. PubMed Commons is gone. There's @PubPe
Another must-read cited at #AHCJ18 panel on "What happens when science turns out to be wrong?", this 2016 Nature paper looking at why errors easy to find, hard to fix: https://t.co/LuBURILNAQ
Of interest: Just how error-prone and self-correcting is science? Read more in "Reproducibility: A Tragedy of Errors" by @IUBloomington School of Public Health Dean David Allison https://t.co/4rvimMkpee #iuopen
$2,000 to publish a correction letter, $10,000 to withdraw an article. Who's killing science here? #publishers https://t.co/t13J8sI665
Favorite (& saddest) Nature piece on this topic. Shares 3 common, widespread errors & crazy examples like readers having to pay journals print charges to actually correct their published errors! https://t.co/TwQys3FKMc Need public forum - desperat
RT @deevybee: Nice thing about preprinting is that you get useful feedback - including the author pointing me to this v relevant Nature Com…
RT @deevybee: Nice thing about preprinting is that you get useful feedback - including the author pointing me to this v relevant Nature Com…
RT @deevybee: Nice thing about preprinting is that you get useful feedback - including the author pointing me to this v relevant Nature Com…
Nice thing about preprinting is that you get useful feedback - including the author pointing me to this v relevant Nature Commentary https://t.co/RirewGmyHj https://t.co/uFUIg8WxDX
RT @ResearchMedics: Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors https://t.co/cOgfEmTQUN #Scholarlycommunication #publication #peerreview
Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors https://t.co/cOgfEmTQUN #Scholarlycommunication #publication #peerreview
“Robust science needs robust corrections. It is time to make the process less onerous.” Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors : Nature News & Comment https://t.co/ku1gABLzpM via @NatureNews
@lararstudent @eriklofmarck @AnnHHeberlein Läser du det här då? https://t.co/p0yFWqoEMf
Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors : Nature News & Comment https://t.co/SsBwNo2zye via @NatureNews
RT @sgdambrauskas: Cuando una imagen lo dice todo. Tragedy of scientific literature. When a single image says it all https://t.co/BsqO0088k…
Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors : Nature News & Comment https://t.co/PeyHZqoTUk via @NatureNews
Cuando una imagen lo dice todo. Tragedy of scientific literature. When a single image says it all https://t.co/BsqO0088ka https://t.co/yrBa6zwFmM
RT @GlobalPHObserv: Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors #statistics #GPHO https://t.co/A6LVwY4pTu
Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors #statistics #GPHO https://t.co/A6LVwY4pTu
RT @hildabast: "Want to correct the scientific literature? Good luck" Critics not the problem @ivanoransky :shout-out for https://t.co/LnXK…