Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–157 of 157 posts

Re: Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

#151

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #149
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked article is 6,848 words, not counting the embedded tweets. Given the low-level content in the first couple paragraphs, and the constant quoting of tweets, I have no reason to read it. Social media is uniformly bullshit and I'm not in the habit of wasting my time with it. If you would like to send me a link, or other reference, to the "peer reviewed article" in which "the commenting on personal appearance to…

Search the original article ( https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-j... ) for this text: "This is how Prof. Ioannidis responded in his new paper." From what I can gather from the published journal article it appears that if these paragraphs of ad hominems were in it they did not survive the review process: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554 Unfortunately I don't know how to fi…

So he made a mistake and the corrected it?

Re: Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

#152

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #151
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search the original article ( https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-j... ) for this text: "This is how Prof. Ioannidis responded in his new paper." From what I can gather from the published journal article it appears that if these paragraphs of ad hominems were in it they did not survive the review process: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554 Unfortunately I don't know how to fi…

So he made a mistake and the corrected it?

@anonymouskimmer: I just held my nose and did as you advised, search the article on "sciencebasedmedicine.org" for the phrase you quoted.

I think this is what UncleMeat refers to as "insulting the physical appearance" of grad students who disagreed with him on twitter:

At that time, the name of the Twitter account owner was not obviously visible (the photo showed an unrecognizable figure with big glasses and a cat), but Meyerowitz-Katz seemed to use the Twitter account prolifically to promote his own work and criticize work contradicting his work. The identity of the Health Nerd Twitter account has become transparent now, since the owner has added a photo of him (wearing a T-shirt that writes “Trust me, I am an epidemiologist”).

In summary, what Ioannidis said was that the twitter account showed an image of someone with big glasses and a cat, and that the owner posted a photo of himself wearing a t-shirt with a slogan.

I would like to say that I struggle to find how that is insulting, but in truth I don't struggle at all. That's all happening on twitter where anything anyone says is insulting to someone. I mean, if he had said something along the lines of "what stupid glasses" or "what stupid t-shirt", yeah, that would have been insulting in the real world. But "an unrecognizable figure with big glasses and a cat)" is an insult- how? To whom? The unrecognisable figure? The cat?

So it's just as I said above, as expected. That whole thing was something inconsequential that social media made a huge todo about because it's social media and people are on it when they have nothing to do. I'm on it right now, I guess, and I actually do have things to do, so ttyl.

Re: Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

#153

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

selimthegrim wrote: post #96
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing happened to Ioannidis. He did his job as a scientist and said what he thought was right, even when everybody disagreed with him. So he was wrong? So what? To be a scientist means to blunder a lot. In fact, to be a scientist means to (be willing to) blunder much, much more than everybody else because that is the only way to learn. Science, ultimately, only gives you the tools to know when you're wrong .

He really lowered himself by personally attacking a grad student who opposed him – the very definition of punching down.

Why? He can't criticise his critics, unless they're scientists of his own standing? I don't know who wrote those rules but I don't remember reading them.

Re: Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

#154

Post by selimthegrim »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #153
selimthegrim wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He really lowered himself by personally attacking a grad student who opposed him – the very definition of punching down.

Why? He can't criticise his critics, unless they're scientists of his own standing? I don't know who wrote those rules but I don't remember reading them.

The attacks were not substantive, along the lines of how dare you grad student open your mouth to me exalted professor

Re: Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

#155

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

selimthegrim wrote: post #154
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? He can't criticise his critics, unless they're scientists of his own standing? I don't know who wrote those rules but I don't remember reading them.

The attacks were not substantive, along the lines of how dare you grad student open your mouth to me exalted professor

Are you sure this is not just you painting meaning and intensions on the exchange because of the people involved and preconceived ideas about "exalted professors" snottily dismissing mere grad students etc?

I think I read the biggest part of the appendix in the linked article and it doesn't come across as what you say. It comes across as irrelevant and unnecessary. The passage was put in an appendix but it really belonged in a blog post, or a tweet, but certainly not in a scholarly article. But other than that, it wasn't even particularly vituperative, just indulgent, really.

It certainly wasn't "insult[ing]" as the parent claimed.

And then of course he removed it from the appendix with a note taking responsibility for it. Yet here we are, still talking about it, as if he stabbed someone in the face or ate babies alive, or anyway whatever a scientist's reputation can reasonably be expected to never recover from.

Re: Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

#156

Post by anonymouskimmer »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #152
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So he made a mistake and the corrected it?

@anonymouskimmer: I just held my nose and did as you advised, search the article on "sciencebasedmedicine.org" for the phrase you quoted. I think this is what UncleMeat refers to as "insulting the physical appearance" of grad students who disagreed with him on twitter: At that time, the name of the Twitter account owner was not obviously visible (the photo showed an unrecognizable figure with big glasses and a cat),…

I don't disagree with you. Some people with social media get riled up on social media. Those without I guess can get riled up in supplementary material. I assume this happened a lot more in the days when journals were basically it for scientific communication (the 17 and 18 hundreds).

Re: Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)

#157

Post by SiempreViernes »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #104
SiempreViernes wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, quite obviously the peer reviewers the journal selects can't be from inside the experiment, and are thus frequently less well informed than collaboration members on which bugs in the software to look out for for example.

How well informed is Random Undergrad Co-Author? And why should being informed on something lead to an authorship? To relate again to material purchases, often enough researchers ask the commercial tech support for details on using the equipment or reagents. This still doesn't make the tech support person a co-author.

Please put the goalposts back to where they where when I answered the question about differences between internal and external reviwers.
Post reply on HN