Max

on one hand what you say surprises me because i would think that many in psychology research went through in psychology bachelor and master programs whereas health and omics research has people with very diverse backgrounds

also omics studies that try to accommodate many analyses in the design and end up doing everything flawedly. or experimental design of the assays that's not communicated or not even randomized.

also the case in epidemiological studies with omics data. lots of secondary data analysis of what was originally a case-control study (need to "maximize utility of existing data"). why they do not design case cohort studies when they know there's going to be secondary analyses i don't know..

o i now see you already reference him in another post, apologies!

fwiw @dagophile.bsky.social also has quite some papers related to this

To me this is a depressing theme in modern academia.

There is so much work being produced, and so many competing demands on our time, that people rarely seem able to just closely read work and frankly say "yes, I believe this" or "no, I don't."

If we aren't doing this, what _are_ we doing?!

We strongly suggest using the following labels: praise: Praises highlight something positive. Try to leave at least one of these comments per review. Do not leave false praise (which can actually be damaging). Do look for something to sincerely praise. nitpick: Nitpicks are trivial preference-based requests. These should be non-blocking by nature. suggestion: Suggestions propose improvements to the current subject. It’s important to be explicit and clear on what is being suggested and why it is an improvement. Consider using patches and the blocking or non-blocking decorations to further communicate your intent. issue: Issues highlight specific problems with the subject under review. These problems can be user-facing or behind the scenes. It is strongly recommended to pair this comment with a suggestion. If you are not sure if a problem exists or not, consider leaving a question. todo: TODO’s are small, trivial, but necessary changes. Distinguishing todo comments from issues: or suggestions: helps direct the reader’s attention to comments requiring more involvement. question: Questions are appropriate if you have a potential concern but are not quite sure if it’s relevant or not. Asking the author for clarification or investigation can lead to a quick resolution. thought: Thoughts represent an idea that popped up from reviewing. These comments are non-blocking by nature, but they are extremely valuable and can lead to more focused initiatives and mentoring opportunities. chore: Chores are simple tasks that must be done before the subject can be “officially” accepted. Usually, these comments reference some common process. Try to leave a link to the process description so that the reader knows how to resolve the chore. note: Notes are always non-blocking and simply highlight something the reader should take note of.

I recently discovered Conventional Comments (conventionalcomments.org) for providing a pseudo-standard set of labels for feedback and just tried it for an article review and it was really helpful to specify issues vs. thoughts vs. suggestions, etc. Hopefully it's helpful for the authors too!

opencausal.org is online!

Open Causal is an open platform to share, discuss and reuse causal graphs. Join now as a beta user, help shaping the future of causal graphs!

i’m not saying they are lying but it’s probably outdated. look at pictures of him and compare them to tour de france riders. it does not add up

not arguing with your broader point but i think it's unlikely his weight is actually 58kg. probably closer to 65-72kg. 58kg is tour de france level skin on bone at his height.

@hkucukali.bsky.social

we usually host an RStudio Server instance ourselves. also thinking of moving to webR as the packages are all available. an option perhaps?

what a great tool and visualization!

some say that when technology works it is indistinguishable from magic

This can't be true because academic papers are all peer-reviewed by experienced experts who would be able to easily identify these shenanigans and stop them in their tracks.

First they came for the immigrants, and I did not speak out (because the message test performed at a low percentile rank compared to other messages in our testing bank for non college men who opt into online surveys through various consumer reward programs)

looks cool! what were the iv and negative control? don't see those often (enough) in the field

My reason for sharing this is not that editors make wrong decisions, but that such long delays in publications also delay other people from building on work, or could lead to people just giving up and working on other projects instead. That seems like it would've been very unfortunate in this case

CRISPR as a microbial immune system In 2003, Mojica wrote the first paper suggesting that CRISPR was an innate microbial immune system. The paper was rejected by a series of high-profile journals, including Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Molecular Microbiology and Nucleic Acids Research, before finally being accepted by Journal of Molecular Evolution in February, 2005.[3][4]

TIL the original paper describing CRISPR, by Francisco Mojica, was rejected by 4 journals and took 2 years to be published

You cannot be truly creative if it is not safe to fail.

Yet modern academic science requires constant short term success.

To survive, you must win grants & 'deliver' on those grants by publishing lots of papers.

That leads to a culture of low risk, iterative research oversold as 'groundbreaking.

A Gentle Introduction: The Gaussian Copula – bggj This post continues the series on copulas in Stan by introducing the Gaussian copula, discussing its properties, applications, and providing examples of how to implement it in Stan.

i stumbled on these two blog posts on copulas the other day:

twiecki.io/blog/2018/05... and

bggj.is/posts/gaussi...

Reminder that all three books I've co-authored are freely available online for non-commercial use (and the fourth will be, too)

happy to help. i think i remember that it took me some attempts too. does the quarto-ext/fontawesome extension show up in ../_extensions ? for me, the bluesky icon was the only one supplied by the FontAwesome extension, so I guess the problem must lie there?

this worked for me:
website:
navbar:
right:
- icon: bluesky
# see github.com/quarto-ext/f...
- text: '{{< fa brands bluesky size=sm >}}'
href: bsky.app/profile/oost...

exactly. "For some associations, volunteer bias in the UKB is so severe that estimates have the opposite sign."
and fwiw there are also these two other papers on the topic
doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001317

doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01579-9

Exploring causality of the association between smoking and Parkinson’s disease AbstractBackground. The aim of this paper is to investigate the causality of the inverse association between cigarette smoking and Parkinson’s disease (PD)

see also this related paper on the relationship between smoking and Parkinson's disease academic.oup.com/ije/article/...

@pwgtennant.bsky.social composition variable and potential collider. seems like your cup of tea

i’m so so sorry. wishing you strength and love. always appreciated your contributions on stats twitter

Science writing from the last two years that stuck with me This list consists of writing that ticked two boxes: 1) did I think about the article again more than a week after reading it?, and 2) was it written for a popular audience? So, academic papers, inclu...

New blog post, on 52 pieces of science writing I've learned from over the last two years.

Thank you, from one reader, to all the authors! blog.jacobtrefethen.com/science-writ...

Reviewer: What's the potential causal mechanism underlying your empirical results? Me: Time to consult the “vague ideas”folder [picture of folder with “vague ideas” written on it]

reposting this @khoavuumn.bsky.social meme