As some of you know im suffering weird #neurological symptoms atm. The last week has been pretty awful. One of the weirder symptoms is called micrographia: writing getting smaller and smaller.
↙️ My writing on Tuesday (bad not awful day)
My writing on Wednesday (awful day) ↘️
Micrographia in itself *can* be an early sign of conditions like #Parkinsons
In patients with Parkinsons, closing their eyes whilst writing can often help mitigate micrographia
(in my case the rapid onset followed by rapid improvement makes me think / hope its just whatever the fuck is going on with my neuro-immunology not a sign of whats to come...😬)
im sure there's other reasons but key things overall i think are: 1. a diagnosis gives you limits - what treatment can and can't be tried, what can trigger things, what's the prognosis, etc
2. it gives patients a community - there's tonnes of groups for people with all kinds of ailments, conditions, illnesses, disabilities. being able to talk to someone with a shared experience helps make everything less shit
during my #PhD, i conducted a side project investigating what the barriers are towards making changes to the #academicpublishing system to reduce publication #bias
ok i've used R now for about 10 hours so im definitely suitably enough experienced to say i hate it, its a big pile of shit, i dont know why this is what is popular, and i wish i had access to stata again. WAHHHHH
im sure people can tell me a million reasons why R is great. sorry to say: YOU'RE WRONG.
i will delete these tweets in a few weeks when it finally clicks and i think R is brilliant like everyone else does
when it comes to engaging #STEM#academics (an essential task in order to gain max momentum to tackle problems like #casualisation), i think 1 difficulty is that #activism uses a lot of logical fallacies. this makes taking action appear irrational 1/15
identifying an issue (e.g. casualisation) and claiming it impacts other issues (e.g. mental health problems) = potential false cause, and/or hasty generalisation fallacy
making broad statements (e.g. gender pay gap is a real problem) = ambiguity fallacy
3/15
i promised in this thread i'd offer an idea of an alternative #academic#publishing model, so here it is. be prepared, changing to this would require some seriously radical change... 1/17
il do this comparison with the last paper i got formally accepted to a journal as these 2 co-occured so there's no "time effect" or anything as a confounder. (JP = journal publishing; PP = preprint publishing) 2/9
JP: rejected 6 times (i think); 3 were editorial rejections *explicitly* mentioning the null findings as a reason for rejection
PP: paper is out there open for anyone to openly critique and i welcome this 3/9