5 ms·

Preprint not peer reviewed. Also: ”A.J.K.P. and S.W.C. are co-founders and co-directors of Circadian Health Innovations PTY LTD.” Lemme guess, looking for fun

Preprint not peer reviewed. Also: ”A.J.K.P. and S.W.C. are co-founders and co-directors of Circadian Health Innovations PTY LTD.” Lemme guess, looking for funding.

thimkerbell 1y ago
What can we do about the tendency of research articles to get their big flash of publicity before undergoing peer review?
- cryptonector 1y ago
  We need to make it a lot cooler for researchers to not do original research all the time but to do replication and peer review. We should also demand publication of failures -- it's ok to fail, but only if you publish about the failure. The whole publish-or-perish culture is a disaster that incentivizes cheating. It should be considered just as valuable to have a few grad students working on replication as on original research, and that should not hurt the students' prospects.
  - zer00eyz 1y ago
    > We need to make it a lot cooler for researchers to not do original research all the time but to do replication and peer review. This should be the work of grad students, not cranking out another paper or slaving for professors. > We should also demand publication of failures -- it's ok to fail, but only if you publish about the failure. I really want to have a journal that just publishes interesting duds. Someone else might look at your methodology and get their own idea.
    - cryptonector 1y ago
      > > We need to make it a lot cooler for researchers to not do original research all the time but to do replication and peer review. > This should be the work of grad students, not cranking out another paper or slaving for professors. But the professors need to arrange for this.
      - adrianN 1y ago
        The people paying the professors need to arrange for this
        cryptonector 1y ago
        Often that's us.
- kazinator 1y ago
  Stop reading non-peer-reviewed stuff and sharing links to it?
- nudgeOrnurture 1y ago
  an active, public pre-review discussion. we nurture critical thinking before the nudge. some charismatic, intelligent dude or dudette or couple with a curious but rather uneducated mind inviting grad students and scientists to discuss studies and pre-prints and so on, constantly babbling scientifically more or less correct nonsense but getting semantically corrected by the guests or something ... ... so viewers can feel "smartypants" and or relate and learn. I'm sure there's podcasts but I don't listen to podcasts.
frtannar 1y ago
The best thing to do is to take commonly held knowledge and make a study out of it. Maybe the next study could be “live king cobra in the bed results in sleep reduction”. Probably a book and a TED talk to go with it.
- roenxi 1y ago
  Eh, you never know with studies. They did this one to serve as a classic counterexample: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 You can almost see the grin as they wrote up the results.
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    To those who don't follow the link. The Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center ran a trial on parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft, and gave half the people jumping a placebo (empty backpack) instead of a parachute. No joke. https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
    - dvfjsdhgfv 1y ago
      OK, I read the article, wondered a bit, then started to read the responses (first aligning with the one "April Fools' in December?"). I mean, what's the point of asking people to jump from airplanes on the ground, write a study on it, and waste everybody's time But then, reading other responses, and taking into account the name of the journal, and the fact that it did get published, I realized it's a very good example of a flawed study, where everybody see a flaw because it's evident, whereas in other studies a flaw of the same magnitude might be quite difficult to see (I could give quite a few examples from my field).
    - sebastiennight 1y ago
      This is the best study I've read this year. The motive behind the study: > Parachutes are routinely used to prevent death or major traumatic injury among individuals jumping from aircraft. However, evidence supporting the efficacy of parachutes is weak and guideline recommendations for their use are principally based on biological plausibility and expert opinion. Results : > Parachute use did not significantly reduce death or major injury (0% for parachute v 0% for control; P>0.9). This finding was consistent across multiple subgroups. Methodology might have an influence on the result: > Compared with individuals screened but not enrolled, participants included in the study were on aircraft at significantly lower altitude (mean of 0.6 m for participants v mean of 9146 m for non-participants; P<0.001) and lower velocity (mean of 0 km/h v mean of 800 km/h; P<0.001). Conclusions > Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. Implications > Should our results be reproduced in future studies, the end of routine parachute use during jumps from aircraft could save the global economy billions of dollars spent annually to prevent injuries related to gravitational challenge. Limitations > However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. I can already see the YouTube thumbnails: THIS IS THE STUDY PARACHUTE MAKERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE
hammock 1y ago
So was Moderna? Means nothing
pazimzadeh 1y ago
Peer review doesn't tell you if the data is valid or not. they published their methodology and anyone is free to repeat the study. Peer review just checks for obvious errors in study design, asks for more info if needed, and decides whether the paper is a good fit for the journal. Watson and Crick's paper describing the structure of DNA wasn't peer reviewed. if you think they're wrong, try it for yourself and publish the results. When a few groups all get the same result then you can be confident about the claims made. until then, it's just kind of interesting to think about, which is fine. > A.J.K.P. and S.W.C. are co-founders and co-directors of Circadian Health Innovations PTY LTD I do agree that this paper alone should not be used to help sell a product. But it looks like this paper just confirms previous findings using more rigorous methodology (see background): "Light at night causes circadian disruption, (21–23) and is therefore a potential determinant of cardiovascular disease risk. Higher risks for coronary artery disease (24) and stroke (25) have been observed in people living in urban environments with brighter outdoor night light, as measured by satellite. Brighter night light has been cross-sectionally related to atherosclerosis, (26,27) obesity, hypertension, and diabetes (28) in small but well-characterized cohorts, using bedroom (26,27) and wrist-worn (28) light sensors. Moreover, experimental exposure to night light elevates heart rate and alters sympathovagal balance. (29) However, current evidence linking night light with cardiovascular risk is mostly within small cohorts, or relies on geospatial-level measurements of outdoor lighting, rather than measures of personal light exposure. (30,31)"
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  > Peer review doesn't tell you if the data is valid or not. Sure but nobody claimed that. > Watson and Crick's paper describing the structure of DNA wasn't peer reviewed. I'd point out that outliers exist but that was before peer review become so popular. Right now there's a good correlation between competency and peer review. > if you think they're wrong, try it for yourself and publish the results. Watson and Crick or the article? For a balanced discussion of the article, it's reasonable to point out a lack of peer review to give context to what stage this is at. If "try it yourself" is the bar then I guess nobody comments? That doesn't seem like a good way to learn anything.
  - 1y ago
dotancohen 1y ago
> Also: ”A.J.K.P. and S.W.C. are co-founders and co-directors of Circadian Health Innovations PTY LTD.” The other edge of the "not impartial" sword: these are people who are highly familiar, likely experts, in the related field. Who else is more qualified to conduct such a study?
- nurettin 1y ago
  > Who else is more qualified to conduct such a study? Whoever does not have a monetary interest in the studied subject is the one who is more qualified. Same with smoking related research, same with children's toy paint related research. But the third edge is: These are phases of fraud that societies go through. They will happen, some will think they are legit, some won't, they disappear into some third world country after taking their sum. It always works like that. And that's predictive science right there.
  - krisoft 1y ago
    > Whoever does not have a monetary interest in the studied subject is the one who is more qualified. I’m not really understanding the monetary interest angle. The monetary interest in this subject is the curtain and window-blind manufacturers. The researches here have a company who sells body worn light sensors. And if their light sensor is good maybe other researchers interested in verifying this phenomena will purchase a few units from them. But they are far from the only company making light sensors. In fact if i want to verify this study i would buy sensors from anyone but them. For the sake of having independent proof free from biases. > they disappear into some third world country after taking their sum What sum, please tell me? Where do you see the riches here?
    - nurettin 1y ago
      I'm sorry I can't continue this conversation of pretending the thing right there doesn't exist.
      - krisoft 1y ago
Llamamoe 1y ago
The result is, however, consistent with existing science.
- cluckindan 1y ago
  However, there is likely a correlation between nighttime light exposure and living in a city, on a lower floor, next to a street with medium or heavy traffic. There is likely also a significant correlation between living in such conditions and exposure to pollution, especially inhaled particulate matter. Such a correlation also holds elsewhere: living in a high-rise means no streetlights outside your window, and also yields cleaner air than living at or near street level; living in the countryside means practically no light pollution, but also much less traffic and thus much less particulates in the air. Inhaled particulate matter is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease. See e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109718383554 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510971...
  - Llamamoe 1y ago
    I've skimmed lots of studies about the relationship between light and health in the past. In both humans and other animals, our internal sleep-wake clocks are synchronized to the day-night cycle through light exposure(and indeed, without it aren't even 24h-long), and have broad implications for mood, wakefulness, metabolism, and general health. I well might have seen something about cardiovascular problems specifically, though I don't remember.

Preprint not peer reviewed. Also: ”A.J.K.P. and S.W.C. are co-founders and co-directors of Circadian Health Innovations PTY LTD.” Lemme guess, looking for funding.

thimkerbell 1y ago

What can we do about the tendency of research articles to get their big flash of publicity before undergoing peer review?

cryptonector 1y ago
We need to make it a lot cooler for researchers to not do original research all the time but to do replication and peer review. We should also demand publication of failures -- it's ok to fail, but only if you publish about the failure. The whole publish-or-perish culture is a disaster that incentivizes cheating. It should be considered just as valuable to have a few grad students working on replication as on original research, and that should not hurt the students' prospects.
- zer00eyz 1y ago
  > We need to make it a lot cooler for researchers to not do original research all the time but to do replication and peer review. This should be the work of grad students, not cranking out another paper or slaving for professors. > We should also demand publication of failures -- it's ok to fail, but only if you publish about the failure. I really want to have a journal that just publishes interesting duds. Someone else might look at your methodology and get their own idea.
  - cryptonector 1y ago
    > > We need to make it a lot cooler for researchers to not do original research all the time but to do replication and peer review. > This should be the work of grad students, not cranking out another paper or slaving for professors. But the professors need to arrange for this.
    - adrianN 1y ago
      The people paying the professors need to arrange for this
      - cryptonector 1y ago
        Often that's us.
kazinator 1y ago
Stop reading non-peer-reviewed stuff and sharing links to it?
nudgeOrnurture 1y ago
an active, public pre-review discussion. we nurture critical thinking before the nudge. some charismatic, intelligent dude or dudette or couple with a curious but rather uneducated mind inviting grad students and scientists to discuss studies and pre-prints and so on, constantly babbling scientifically more or less correct nonsense but getting semantically corrected by the guests or something ... ... so viewers can feel "smartypants" and or relate and learn. I'm sure there's podcasts but I don't listen to podcasts.

frtannar 1y ago

The best thing to do is to take commonly held knowledge and make a study out of it. Maybe the next study could be “live king cobra in the bed results in sleep reduction”. Probably a book and a TED talk to go with it.

roenxi 1y ago
Eh, you never know with studies. They did this one to serve as a classic counterexample: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 You can almost see the grin as they wrote up the results.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  To those who don't follow the link. The Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center ran a trial on parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft, and gave half the people jumping a placebo (empty backpack) instead of a parachute. No joke. https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
  - dvfjsdhgfv 1y ago
    OK, I read the article, wondered a bit, then started to read the responses (first aligning with the one "April Fools' in December?"). I mean, what's the point of asking people to jump from airplanes on the ground, write a study on it, and waste everybody's time But then, reading other responses, and taking into account the name of the journal, and the fact that it did get published, I realized it's a very good example of a flawed study, where everybody see a flaw because it's evident, whereas in other studies a flaw of the same magnitude might be quite difficult to see (I could give quite a few examples from my field).
  - sebastiennight 1y ago
    This is the best study I've read this year. The motive behind the study: > Parachutes are routinely used to prevent death or major traumatic injury among individuals jumping from aircraft. However, evidence supporting the efficacy of parachutes is weak and guideline recommendations for their use are principally based on biological plausibility and expert opinion. Results : > Parachute use did not significantly reduce death or major injury (0% for parachute v 0% for control; P>0.9). This finding was consistent across multiple subgroups. Methodology might have an influence on the result: > Compared with individuals screened but not enrolled, participants included in the study were on aircraft at significantly lower altitude (mean of 0.6 m for participants v mean of 9146 m for non-participants; P<0.001) and lower velocity (mean of 0 km/h v mean of 800 km/h; P<0.001). Conclusions > Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. Implications > Should our results be reproduced in future studies, the end of routine parachute use during jumps from aircraft could save the global economy billions of dollars spent annually to prevent injuries related to gravitational challenge. Limitations > However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. I can already see the YouTube thumbnails: THIS IS THE STUDY PARACHUTE MAKERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE

hammock 1y ago

So was Moderna? Means nothing

pazimzadeh 1y ago

Peer review doesn't tell you if the data is valid or not. they published their methodology and anyone is free to repeat the study. Peer review just checks for obvious errors in study design, asks for more info if needed, and decides whether the paper is a good fit for the journal. Watson and Crick's paper describing the structure of DNA wasn't peer reviewed. if you think they're wrong, try it for yourself and publish the results. When a few groups all get the same result then you can be confident about the claims made. until then, it's just kind of interesting to think about, which is fine. > A.J.K.P. and S.W.C. are co-founders and co-directors of Circadian Health Innovations PTY LTD I do agree that this paper alone should not be used to help sell a product. But it looks like this paper just confirms previous findings using more rigorous methodology (see background): "Light at night causes circadian disruption, (21–23) and is therefore a potential determinant of cardiovascular disease risk. Higher risks for coronary artery disease (24) and stroke (25) have been observed in people living in urban environments with brighter outdoor night light, as measured by satellite. Brighter night light has been cross-sectionally related to atherosclerosis, (26,27) obesity, hypertension, and diabetes (28) in small but well-characterized cohorts, using bedroom (26,27) and wrist-worn (28) light sensors. Moreover, experimental exposure to night light elevates heart rate and alters sympathovagal balance. (29) However, current evidence linking night light with cardiovascular risk is mostly within small cohorts, or relies on geospatial-level measurements of outdoor lighting, rather than measures of personal light exposure. (30,31)"

Dylan16807 1y ago
> Peer review doesn't tell you if the data is valid or not. Sure but nobody claimed that. > Watson and Crick's paper describing the structure of DNA wasn't peer reviewed. I'd point out that outliers exist but that was before peer review become so popular. Right now there's a good correlation between competency and peer review. > if you think they're wrong, try it for yourself and publish the results. Watson and Crick or the article? For a balanced discussion of the article, it's reasonable to point out a lack of peer review to give context to what stage this is at. If "try it yourself" is the bar then I guess nobody comments? That doesn't seem like a good way to learn anything.
- 1y ago

dotancohen 1y ago

> Also: ”A.J.K.P. and S.W.C. are co-founders and co-directors of Circadian Health Innovations PTY LTD.” The other edge of the "not impartial" sword: these are people who are highly familiar, likely experts, in the related field. Who else is more qualified to conduct such a study?

nurettin 1y ago
> Who else is more qualified to conduct such a study? Whoever does not have a monetary interest in the studied subject is the one who is more qualified. Same with smoking related research, same with children's toy paint related research. But the third edge is: These are phases of fraud that societies go through. They will happen, some will think they are legit, some won't, they disappear into some third world country after taking their sum. It always works like that. And that's predictive science right there.
- krisoft 1y ago
  > Whoever does not have a monetary interest in the studied subject is the one who is more qualified. I’m not really understanding the monetary interest angle. The monetary interest in this subject is the curtain and window-blind manufacturers. The researches here have a company who sells body worn light sensors. And if their light sensor is good maybe other researchers interested in verifying this phenomena will purchase a few units from them. But they are far from the only company making light sensors. In fact if i want to verify this study i would buy sensors from anyone but them. For the sake of having independent proof free from biases. > they disappear into some third world country after taking their sum What sum, please tell me? Where do you see the riches here?
  - nurettin 1y ago
    I'm sorry I can't continue this conversation of pretending the thing right there doesn't exist.
    - krisoft 1y ago

Llamamoe 1y ago

The result is, however, consistent with existing science.

cluckindan 1y ago
However, there is likely a correlation between nighttime light exposure and living in a city, on a lower floor, next to a street with medium or heavy traffic. There is likely also a significant correlation between living in such conditions and exposure to pollution, especially inhaled particulate matter. Such a correlation also holds elsewhere: living in a high-rise means no streetlights outside your window, and also yields cleaner air than living at or near street level; living in the countryside means practically no light pollution, but also much less traffic and thus much less particulates in the air. Inhaled particulate matter is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease. See e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109718383554 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510971...
- Llamamoe 1y ago
  I've skimmed lots of studies about the relationship between light and health in the past. In both humans and other animals, our internal sleep-wake clocks are synchronized to the day-night cycle through light exposure(and indeed, without it aren't even 24h-long), and have broad implications for mood, wakefulness, metabolism, and general health. I well might have seen something about cardiovascular problems specifically, though I don't remember.