4 ms·

Good luck- you might be waiting a while. Peer review takes months to years. At that point it's too late for preventative strategies for a pandemic.

Hnrobert42 6y ago
Years? No. And if you want to improve the peer review process, lobby for paying reviewers (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5). Regardless, I stand by my original point. I prefer peer-reviewed analysis. The alternative is a free-for-all where junk claims equal weight with legitimate science. Such a system is usually supported by folks whose work can’t make it through the traditional system.
- gloriosoc 6y ago
  Oof now we are saying that my work is not of publishable quality? The data are from two days ago so it would be hard to get it peer reviewed in that time. But I do plan on publishing. I am putting it out there so people can make more informed decisions (about schools etc) in real time.
  - bobosha 6y ago
    You could put this up on biorxiv and invite other researchers to comment.
    - gloriosoc 6y ago
      That's a good idea- that too will take some time- writing a paper is not a small task but I will put it on the to do list.
    - gloriosoc 6y ago
      And actually there is a comment feature on the blog- so anyone can comment including my colleagues.
  - rallison 6y ago
    Not the original commenter, but no, I'd hope not, in its current state. It's a shallow analysis, and it does a poor job of analyzing the data to try to understand causality in explaining case trends. For example: > Why would Floridas numbers start to decrease if not for herd immunity? We know they aren’t being more careful. Disney land reopened and there is a police sheriff who literally made a rule that police officers and people going into the station were not allowed to wear masks. As I mentioned in another comment: > For example, bars opened in early June in Florida. They closed on June 26th after cases started spiking. To miss a policy change this significant in such a piece is pretty egregious if you are claiming that this is publishable quality. I'll assume this was a good faith effort, but the piece has many flaws and draws conclusions that aren't well supported.
  - maest 6y ago
    > Oof now we are saying that my work is not of publishable quality? You can think of all the feedback here as equivalent to the feedback submitters get from their peer reviewers. IIUC, that's the point of the website?
    - gloriosoc 6y ago
      Actually, yes this is the point. I think this thread has been very useful feedback for the most part and has made me feel pretty optimistic about the utility of crowd sourced review. The "oof" is more reaction to the framing of that particular feedback, which felt more like a personal insult than constructive critique- it basically said that I wasn't a good enough scientist to be published. And of course the post isn't a publication- it's a blog post- so perhaps different standards in a lot of regards.
      - maest 6y ago
        Yeah, taking feedback isn't easy, and feedback received from strangers online can be particularly brutal.
- gus_massa 6y ago
  > Years? No. It depends a lot on the area. In math it is common to have a looooooooooooong review time, sometimes years if you are unlucky. In sane areas the time is much shorter and you can start to get impatient after a month without updates.
  - gloriosoc 6y ago
    Yeah I had a paper in review at Nature Communications for two years, so yeah. Reviewers can ask for complicated follow up experiments that take time to do.
    - Hnrobert42 6y ago
      I was in a bad mood a few days ago. Sorry if my comments were harsh.
- giardini 6y ago
  Hnrobert42 says>Regardless, I stand by my original point. I prefer peer-reviewed analysis.< This is what "peer-reviewed analysis" has given us: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John P. A. Ioannidis https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo... Ioannidis' paper was published in 2005, time enough for us to realize the currently "accepted" methodology does not work. Hnrobert42 says>"The alternative is a free-for-all where junk claims equal weight with legitimate science. Such a system is usually supported by folks whose work can’t make it through the traditional system."< If Ioannidis is right (and I think he is), science isn't working out very well. We need to find another implementation of "science" that does work - what we have is a massive failure. Not only is it wrong, it is wrong and slow. [Aside: some of the following is sarcasm] I'm starting to believe that much of "science" is fraudulent, a massive, circus-like free-for-all for funding that has no justification other than the egos and livelihood of those embedded in it. We need a "Savanarola of Science" to burn some "scientists" at the stake and straighten the path of "science" just as religion was cleansed in Renaissance Florence: Girolamo Savonarola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola [Aside aside: probably wouldn't solve the problem but likely would do much good by culling out (mostly) from the bottom 50%. Maybe rinse, repeat...]
needcaffeine 6y ago
Preprints.

Hnrobert42 6y ago

Years? No. And if you want to improve the peer review process, lobby for paying reviewers (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5). Regardless, I stand by my original point. I prefer peer-reviewed analysis. The alternative is a free-for-all where junk claims equal weight with legitimate science. Such a system is usually supported by folks whose work can’t make it through the traditional system.

gloriosoc 6y ago
Oof now we are saying that my work is not of publishable quality? The data are from two days ago so it would be hard to get it peer reviewed in that time. But I do plan on publishing. I am putting it out there so people can make more informed decisions (about schools etc) in real time.
- bobosha 6y ago
  You could put this up on biorxiv and invite other researchers to comment.
  - gloriosoc 6y ago
    That's a good idea- that too will take some time- writing a paper is not a small task but I will put it on the to do list.
  - gloriosoc 6y ago
    And actually there is a comment feature on the blog- so anyone can comment including my colleagues.
- rallison 6y ago
  Not the original commenter, but no, I'd hope not, in its current state. It's a shallow analysis, and it does a poor job of analyzing the data to try to understand causality in explaining case trends. For example: > Why would Floridas numbers start to decrease if not for herd immunity? We know they aren’t being more careful. Disney land reopened and there is a police sheriff who literally made a rule that police officers and people going into the station were not allowed to wear masks. As I mentioned in another comment: > For example, bars opened in early June in Florida. They closed on June 26th after cases started spiking. To miss a policy change this significant in such a piece is pretty egregious if you are claiming that this is publishable quality. I'll assume this was a good faith effort, but the piece has many flaws and draws conclusions that aren't well supported.
- maest 6y ago
  > Oof now we are saying that my work is not of publishable quality? You can think of all the feedback here as equivalent to the feedback submitters get from their peer reviewers. IIUC, that's the point of the website?
  - gloriosoc 6y ago
    Actually, yes this is the point. I think this thread has been very useful feedback for the most part and has made me feel pretty optimistic about the utility of crowd sourced review. The "oof" is more reaction to the framing of that particular feedback, which felt more like a personal insult than constructive critique- it basically said that I wasn't a good enough scientist to be published. And of course the post isn't a publication- it's a blog post- so perhaps different standards in a lot of regards.
    - maest 6y ago
      Yeah, taking feedback isn't easy, and feedback received from strangers online can be particularly brutal.
gus_massa 6y ago
> Years? No. It depends a lot on the area. In math it is common to have a looooooooooooong review time, sometimes years if you are unlucky. In sane areas the time is much shorter and you can start to get impatient after a month without updates.
- gloriosoc 6y ago
  Yeah I had a paper in review at Nature Communications for two years, so yeah. Reviewers can ask for complicated follow up experiments that take time to do.
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    I was in a bad mood a few days ago. Sorry if my comments were harsh.
giardini 6y ago
Hnrobert42 says>Regardless, I stand by my original point. I prefer peer-reviewed analysis.< This is what "peer-reviewed analysis" has given us: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John P. A. Ioannidis https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo... Ioannidis' paper was published in 2005, time enough for us to realize the currently "accepted" methodology does not work. Hnrobert42 says>"The alternative is a free-for-all where junk claims equal weight with legitimate science. Such a system is usually supported by folks whose work can’t make it through the traditional system."< If Ioannidis is right (and I think he is), science isn't working out very well. We need to find another implementation of "science" that does work - what we have is a massive failure. Not only is it wrong, it is wrong and slow. [Aside: some of the following is sarcasm] I'm starting to believe that much of "science" is fraudulent, a massive, circus-like free-for-all for funding that has no justification other than the egos and livelihood of those embedded in it. We need a "Savanarola of Science" to burn some "scientists" at the stake and straighten the path of "science" just as religion was cleansed in Renaissance Florence: Girolamo Savonarola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola [Aside aside: probably wouldn't solve the problem but likely would do much good by culling out (mostly) from the bottom 50%. Maybe rinse, repeat...]

needcaffeine 6y ago

Preprints.