4 ms·

I would love to and could do a better job, the barrier is the current system, it is immediately dismissed as unscientific if done outside of academia or an inst

I would love to and could do a better job, the barrier is the current system, it is immediately dismissed as unscientific if done outside of academia or an institution adjacent.

atoav 2y ago
How do you know? Have you tried? It is certainly harder to get published as an independent researcher, but it is also not unheard of. See discussion at: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_individual_without_affiliation_to_a_university_or_research_institute_publish_research_papers_What_would_be_the_journals_stand_in_such_case https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_individual_without_a... Publishing your own study isn't the only way to critisise a hypothesis, you could also just write a rigouros blog post. Also: Scientists are humans, not godlike beings in ivory towers, thus science lives from participation. If you can find a methological flaw in a study that you are confident about, consider writing them. Who knows, maybe they already accounted for it (and you learn something) or they didn't (and they learn something). Either way they get a chance to clarify or correct. In the end the goal is to help figuring out what effective Alzheimers prevention looks like. Creating a good discourse around a study can be helpful, but it is also important to be rigorous and communicative when doing so. See as an example the discussion in the peer review of the discussed study, especially the section on survivorship bias: https://www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/attachments/bmj-article/pre-pub-history/alzheimers_drivers_bmj_r1_response_letter.pdf https://www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/attachments/bmj-arti... If I wrote a study that has a flaw I'd like to be the first to hear about it, just like I like to get a bug report when my software has a bug. Especially if it is a good cause.

4 ms·

I would love to and could do a better job, the barrier is the current system, it is immediately dismissed as unscientific if done outside of academia or an inst

by aeternum 2y ago

I would love to and could do a better job, the barrier is the current system, it is immediately dismissed as unscientific if done outside of academia or an institution adjacent.

atoav 2y ago
How do you know? Have you tried? It is certainly harder to get published as an independent researcher, but it is also not unheard of. See discussion at: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_individual_without_affiliation_to_a_university_or_research_institute_publish_research_papers_What_would_be_the_journals_stand_in_such_case https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_individual_without_a... Publishing your own study isn't the only way to critisise a hypothesis, you could also just write a rigouros blog post. Also: Scientists are humans, not godlike beings in ivory towers, thus science lives from participation. If you can find a methological flaw in a study that you are confident about, consider writing them. Who knows, maybe they already accounted for it (and you learn something) or they didn't (and they learn something). Either way they get a chance to clarify or correct. In the end the goal is to help figuring out what effective Alzheimers prevention looks like. Creating a good discourse around a study can be helpful, but it is also important to be rigorous and communicative when doing so. See as an example the discussion in the peer review of the discussed study, especially the section on survivorship bias: https://www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/attachments/bmj-article/pre-pub-history/alzheimers_drivers_bmj_r1_response_letter.pdf https://www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/attachments/bmj-arti... If I wrote a study that has a flaw I'd like to be the first to hear about it, just like I like to get a bug report when my software has a bug. Especially if it is a good cause.