4 ms·
Why should we hold journalists to a higher standard than science journals? It was only a week and a half ago that JAMA did the same thing: http://jama.jamanetwo
by wang_li 10y ago
Why should we hold journalists to a higher standard than science journals? It was only a week and a half ago that JAMA did the same thing: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2533698 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2533698
- RA_Fisher 10y agoSeveral times I've asked authors in JAMA articles for the data (synthetic is fine!) + code used to generate the results. A few have been polite enough to respond and decline. Also, notice many of JAMA's published graphs on Twitter and in papers have no visual representation of uncertainty. Point estimates are fairly bankrupt plotted by themselves.
- jlarocco 10y agoJust because some other group is also wrong doesn't mean it's okay. They're both being held to the same standard, and they're both failing. Two wrongs don't make a right.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tstactplsignore 10y agoHow is this the same thing? The JAMA article is a factually correct article clearly presenting a specific viewpoint. There are pieces like that in journals all the time, and there should be. The original post here is talking about the misrepresentation of what is a viewpoint / opinion piece as a scientific study in the mainstream news media. They have nothing to do with each other.
- wang_li 10y agoIt's a one sided opinion piece that completely fails to be objective about the success of the ACA. Additionally, it wasn't peer reviewed, so it's a stretch to claim that it's factually accurate. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-berezow-hartsfield-obama-jama-20160718-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-berezow-hartsfiel...