| Doubt shed upon on 10:42 - Jun 15 with 717 views | DanTheMan |
I may be wrong, but isn't this how it usually works?
You find something, you write up a paper and submit it. Others scrutinise it and attempt to replicate the findings. If they can't, it doesn't mean the paper was completely valueless but there may be something missed, or may have been a fluke for example.
It doesn't seem like the scientists quoted are saying that peer review is failing either, just that there is a problem with that study, which is entirely the point in publishing these things.
The main problem at the moment as you say it that these studies are being seized upon by people who are not in the field and being used to justify changes. Almost understandable in this situation as our understanding of the disease is still progressing but politicians want to make decisions right away. |  |
|  |
| Doubt shed upon on 10:46 - Jun 15 with 693 views | Guthrum |
| Doubt shed upon on 10:42 - Jun 15 by DanTheMan |
I may be wrong, but isn't this how it usually works?
You find something, you write up a paper and submit it. Others scrutinise it and attempt to replicate the findings. If they can't, it doesn't mean the paper was completely valueless but there may be something missed, or may have been a fluke for example.
It doesn't seem like the scientists quoted are saying that peer review is failing either, just that there is a problem with that study, which is entirely the point in publishing these things.
The main problem at the moment as you say it that these studies are being seized upon by people who are not in the field and being used to justify changes. Almost understandable in this situation as our understanding of the disease is still progressing but politicians want to make decisions right away. |
Tho peer reviewing is usually done before publication, not after.
A lot of this is down to the speed with which people are trying to get stuff out in response to Covid-19. Partly to get possible solutions looked at early, but also to claim the first spot in doing so. |  |
| |
| Doubt shed upon on 10:50 - Jun 15 with 676 views | StokieBlue |
| Doubt shed upon on 10:42 - Jun 15 by DanTheMan |
I may be wrong, but isn't this how it usually works?
You find something, you write up a paper and submit it. Others scrutinise it and attempt to replicate the findings. If they can't, it doesn't mean the paper was completely valueless but there may be something missed, or may have been a fluke for example.
It doesn't seem like the scientists quoted are saying that peer review is failing either, just that there is a problem with that study, which is entirely the point in publishing these things.
The main problem at the moment as you say it that these studies are being seized upon by people who are not in the field and being used to justify changes. Almost understandable in this situation as our understanding of the disease is still progressing but politicians want to make decisions right away. |
I was listening to a podcast which was saying that peer review during the crisis has essentially been either rushed or bypassed for many studies. They are put out there with "peer review pending" and then seized upon.
On the same podcast it also spoke of a researcher who went back and looked at 15 years of his own studies and came to the conclusion he was wrong and made a statement saying as much. That's impressive reflection which isn't always common.
Found an article on the guy:
https://today.duke.edu/2020/06/studies-brain-activity-aren%E2%80%99t-useful-scie
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Doubt shed upon on 10:52 - Jun 15 with 671 views | Pinewoodblue |
Think 1m May be safe in some circumstances but not in others. Not seen any report on it but suspect 1m may be less safe in an air-conditioned building than one with only natural air circulation. |  |
| |
| Doubt shed upon on 10:53 - Jun 15 with 670 views | EdwardStone |
Doubt Shed
Just out back of the Futility Room
 |  | | |
| Doubt shed upon on 11:00 - Jun 15 with 642 views | Guthrum |
| Doubt shed upon on 10:52 - Jun 15 by Pinewoodblue |
Think 1m May be safe in some circumstances but not in others. Not seen any report on it but suspect 1m may be less safe in an air-conditioned building than one with only natural air circulation. |
Can't remember the precise figures I was told, but it was something like 2 mins at 1m is the equivalent of 10 mins at 2m, in terms of exposure.
Edit: That was in an enclosed space, I believe. [Post edited 15 Jun 2020 11:02]
| |
| |
| Doubt shed upon on 11:07 - Jun 15 with 616 views | DanTheMan |
| Doubt shed upon on 10:46 - Jun 15 by Guthrum |
Tho peer reviewing is usually done before publication, not after.
A lot of this is down to the speed with which people are trying to get stuff out in response to Covid-19. Partly to get possible solutions looked at early, but also to claim the first spot in doing so. |
Again this may be my misunderstanding but I don't think there is just one standard of peer review. I'm fairly sure post-publiciation peer review isn't unheard of, and I could certainly see it happening more often at the moment with regards to sharing even flawed studies.
That's not to say other peer review is being rushed. | |
| |
| Doubt shed upon on 11:09 - Jun 15 with 606 views | sparks |
| Doubt shed upon on 10:52 - Jun 15 by Pinewoodblue |
Think 1m May be safe in some circumstances but not in others. Not seen any report on it but suspect 1m may be less safe in an air-conditioned building than one with only natural air circulation. |
I doubht that 2m helps in an aircon building if you are in the right air-path, or there for a prolonged period. |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Doubt shed upon on 11:39 - Jun 15 with 570 views | gordon |
| Doubt shed upon on 11:07 - Jun 15 by DanTheMan |
Again this may be my misunderstanding but I don't think there is just one standard of peer review. I'm fairly sure post-publiciation peer review isn't unheard of, and I could certainly see it happening more often at the moment with regards to sharing even flawed studies.
That's not to say other peer review is being rushed. |
It's fairly standard to put things up on a pre-print server in lots of fields (pre-peer review) for the purpose of allowing comment from more than just the usual 2 peer reviewers before publication, and also to let others in the field know what is coming (it's very useful, particularly when things are moving fast).
There have been a few examples of COVID related papers where the authors have published on a pre-print surver and publicised on twitter as if the work was complete and peer reviewed, which has rightly attracted some criticism - there is loads of cash washing about for labs that can demonstrate that they are doing something useful COVID related, so there are some dash for cash papers about, but generally they haven't influenced the main narrative and have been dismissed pretty rapidly, apart from probably the John Ioaniddis stuff, and a few bits of politically driven research trying to demonstrate that the virus has spread more than it actually has.
The process of science is just a whole lot more messy than people are usually aware of - getting to the bottom of the consequences of 2m vs 1m is going to be a very, very messy piece of research, with loads of caveats and assumptions etc - you're looking for signals in dirty data with loads of confounding variables.
By and large though, the problem is more the scientific illiteracy of most commentators / journalists, who generally aren't able to assess the strength of evidence & degree of uncertainty & assumptions, and just want a headline and a quote. See eg the Ferguson modelling stuff. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
