3 ms·

It is never worth wasting your time on an unreviewed preprint outside your expertise. There is tremendous pressure to publish exciting results as an academic, a

It is never worth wasting your time on an unreviewed preprint outside your expertise. There is tremendous pressure to publish exciting results as an academic, and very weak tools for detecting false results, whether dishonest or just statistically unsound.

myth2018 6y ago
Indeed. Reminds me of that infamous study about chloroquine ran by scientists of the university of Marseille in March. Despite all the criticism regarding the very small sample and a bunch of huge methodological failures, one of the authors started a campaign claiming that hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin could cure covid-19. That has been used by many politicians in USA and Brazil as a underlying reason for their claims that social distancing measures were unnecessary. The losses in terms of time, money and, worst, lives because of this disinformation campaign are immeasurable and I feel really bad when I think that probably none of those who intentionally spread such false claims will be ever punished.
- cjbprime 6y ago
  Ugh, yeah. On the other hand, that case is at least a legitimate dilemma -- "ignore every paper when it's published, wait a year for reproductions and meta-analysis" is the right thing to do except for the case where there's a new global pandemic and it's very valuable to be able to stop everyone dying right now if you can.
  - myth2018 6y ago
    Agree, but what we've seen was the extreme opposite of a rigorous protocol. Based on mere six cases or so, authors made an extremely bold claim. That could justify further research, though, and they were in fact made. Within some weeks there were already more thorough studies showing the inefficacy of those drugs, but the politicization was already irreversible at that point.
vibrio 6y ago
I agree so much. Frequency at which the popular media is reporting headlines from unreviewed preprints is appalling. There should be much more journalistic discipline, but that cow has probably left the barn with the internet.

myth2018 6y ago

Indeed. Reminds me of that infamous study about chloroquine ran by scientists of the university of Marseille in March. Despite all the criticism regarding the very small sample and a bunch of huge methodological failures, one of the authors started a campaign claiming that hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin could cure covid-19. That has been used by many politicians in USA and Brazil as a underlying reason for their claims that social distancing measures were unnecessary. The losses in terms of time, money and, worst, lives because of this disinformation campaign are immeasurable and I feel really bad when I think that probably none of those who intentionally spread such false claims will be ever punished.

cjbprime 6y ago
Ugh, yeah. On the other hand, that case is at least a legitimate dilemma -- "ignore every paper when it's published, wait a year for reproductions and meta-analysis" is the right thing to do except for the case where there's a new global pandemic and it's very valuable to be able to stop everyone dying right now if you can.
- myth2018 6y ago
  Agree, but what we've seen was the extreme opposite of a rigorous protocol. Based on mere six cases or so, authors made an extremely bold claim. That could justify further research, though, and they were in fact made. Within some weeks there were already more thorough studies showing the inefficacy of those drugs, but the politicization was already irreversible at that point.

vibrio 6y ago

I agree so much. Frequency at which the popular media is reporting headlines from unreviewed preprints is appalling. There should be much more journalistic discipline, but that cow has probably left the barn with the internet.