tomlue

9 ms·

1. 91.▲
   by tomlue 7y ago

   We did a data extraction project for 81 trials using oral or intravenous IV as a cancer therapy! You can see the whole project at https://sysrev.com/p/6737 . Basically we imported 81 VitC trials from clinicaltrials.gov
2. 92.▲
   by tomlue 7y ago

   transparent review isn't a perfect solution. But the problem you suggest of reluctance to anger colleagues or currying favor are worse under the current system than they would be under a transparent one. Just because other journals fa
3. 93.▲
   by tomlue 7y ago

   It does not have to be slow in all domains. In my field there are many modeling papers. Journals could require that all data and code be open access, or at least define a submission type where this is the case. You could even automate th
4. 94.▲
   by tomlue 7y ago

   I'm a recent PhD graduate that focused heavily on publication and collected ~20 publications. I think the situation with peer review is worse than discussed here. Peer review: 1. dramatically reduces the pace of progress 2. exacerbate
5. 95.▲
   by tomlue 7y ago

   An AGI will think much faster than 7 billion human brains put together. It will also self improve much faster.
6. 96.▲
   by tomlue 8y ago

   Am I the only one who doesn't feel this way? These posts seems susceptible to positive response bias, but they also seem more common lately. If you are like me you might be happy to know that there are other people who don't care
7. 97.▲
   by tomlue 8y ago

   The risk of failure is reduced when you near completion.