Read on Twitter
oh, for crying out loud
Another op-ed in the New York Times that worries over the "the rapid-fire world of preprints, especially amid a pandemic when there are strong forces aligned against patience ..."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/opinion/coronavirus-preprints.html
Another op-ed in the New York Times that worries over the "the rapid-fire world of preprints, especially amid a pandemic when there are strong forces aligned against patience ..."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/opinion/coronavirus-preprints.html
Don't get me wrong -- I'd love it if scientists created a "rapid review service" of experts who are "ready to comment" on preprints at a moment's notice. Even better if it includes applied statisticians.
By all means, please stand by for my call!
By all means, please stand by for my call!
But please spare us the concerns over how science--jounro brains might be overwhelmed by all them DAZZLING PREPRINTS
Why is it that every one of these op-eds cites the same example of a Bad Preprint that hornswoggled and confused the poor, defenseless science journalists?
hmmmmmm
hmmmmmm
Huh, I guess the problem with the Stanford seroprevalence study was that it got posted to preprint server. How could journalists resist?
Let's see here... what could possibly have caused this study to get so much press? It must have been the preprint, right?
As opposed to, say, the official video on YouTube from John Ioannidis announcing its results...?
As opposed to, say, the official video on YouTube from John Ioannidis announcing its results...?
Or maybe the Wall Street Journal opinion piece timed to publish on the same day that the preprint was posted...?
Or possibly the fact that one of the authors went on Tucker Carlson's show to tout the study's findings three days BEFORE the preprint came out...?
You can read @stephaniemlee's amazing coverage for more on the coordinated media rollout of this paper: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-neeleman-ioannidis-whistleblower
So is this really a "case in point" of the dangers of preprint science, as the new NYT op-ed's authors would have it?
No no no no no NO no no no NO NO
Look at this:
No no no no no NO no no no NO NO
Look at this:
The only reason that any science journalists were able to challenge the assertions of that study is because other scientists quickly started tearing up that blessed PREPRINT on Twitter
Smart, skeptical coverage of that paper appeared within a few days of its posting to a preprint server...
**A FEW DAYS** https://www.wired.com/story/new-covid-19-antibody-study-results-are-in-are-they-right/
**A FEW DAYS** https://www.wired.com/story/new-covid-19-antibody-study-results-are-in-are-they-right/
This, from the NYT op-ed, is just utterly wrong
I've seen zero evidence that suspect preprint papers are any more -- or any less -- prone to being ballyhooed than peer-reviewed research.
Also: I've seen zero evidence that sketchy preprint papers have caused any more -- or any less -- harm during this pandemic.
Also: I've seen zero evidence that sketchy preprint papers have caused any more -- or any less -- harm during this pandemic.
Remember the peer-reviewed Surgisphere papers? https://www.wired.com/story/just-how-historic-is-the-latest-covid-19-science-meltdown/
What about the peer-reviewed hydroxychloroquine research?
Can we please stop worrying over the spread of preprint research?
Pretty preprint please?
Pretty preprint please?
