Getting some great questions on this: 1. Are to taking this line on all journals or just the ones that require an APC to publish? What about the #paywall ponies?
>I know there are other issues with publishers that charge readers/subscribers a bomb, but one campaign at a time...
Q2. But I'm submitting papers that need to be peer reviewed, are you suggesting I not doing my bit for the system...
>By all means, review - but prioritise who you do it for (next Tweet)
Prioritise: a) the official journals of groups you're a member of; b) ones don’t make an obscene profit out of publicly-funded, public-good research, without giving back.
because, whose system are you "doing your bit" for? the public good science system, or the private corporations that need us to both produce their content AND provide the time-costly, publicly-subsidised, scarce skill that they need for their highly profitable business model?
I figure they can't have it both ways: There's no question that quality publishing costs money; there is significant ‘value’ in the reach and credibilty that established publishers offer - but there is significant value in the services that peer reviewers provide
I'm willing to pay them for their service - I'm only asking that they pay me for mine.
the Boards of Directors of academic & professional societies you're a member of have the responsibility to get the best publishing deal on behalf of their stakeholders. So don't undermine their efforts - review for the journals you pay dues for (and elect good BoD members)
the supply-and-demand curve has changed. There is greater demand for reviewers, but supply is limited. So if the big guns want our services (which they need for their business model to generate profits) it’s time they recognise the true value we provide. Viva la révolution!
OK, potential unintended consequences time: 1) the most profitable publishers can afford to offer reviewers some credit, so do, and thus become more dominant. Discuss
OK: 1. Research on treatments should follow a pathway. It’s meant to begin with efficacy “can it work?” along with mechanistic studies on “how does it work?”. Once efficacy has been established, it’s time to move on to effectiveness “does it work for in the intended population”?
2. Efficacy studies are your classic placebo-controlled trial: ideal conditions, high internal validity. I think people misunderstand the role of efficacy studies. We don’t need many of these to answer “can it work?”.
3. Exercise in OA had shown efficacy, and the field moved on to effectiveness ages ago. That ship has sailed. That’s how the pathway works. Was it too early? Not good enough data? Maybe. But the ship sailed long ago, and how effectiveness is established too.
Are Manual Therapy or Booster Sessions Worthwhile in Addition to Exercise Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis? Economic Evaluation and 2-Year Follow-up of a RCT.
**50 days' free access** authors.elsevier.com/c/1dXi48nLVhjB…
2/7 Compared with conventional delivery of Ex Ther (12 consecutive sessions), either distributing the sessions over a year using 8 consecutive sessions then 4 later "booster" sessions, OR adding Manual Therapy, improved outcomes and were cost-effective at 2yrs (& 5yrs projected)
3/7 Compared with conventional delivery of Ex Ther (12 consecutive sessions), distributing the sessions over a year using 8 consecutive sessions then 4 later "booster" sessions improved outcomes. Societal costs slightly lower; health system slightly higher (a lot of uncertainty)