No, it's not an exciting time, it's terrifying - we're sleep walking into the end of civilisation as we know it, sat back on our soft sofas, drinking lattes, watching Netflix as the vast majority of the planet's population deals with all the crap we've done to get us here. (2/7)
Even as our lives get harder we can't even imagine how shit things are going to be for the less privileged 90% of the human race. I watch heroes getting arrested for desperately trying to get politicians to wake up and act urgently, whilst middle-aged white men hurl abuse.. (3/7)
...from the pavement and laugh at the 'hippies'. I overhear the police telling people they need to move because the protest is blocking ambulance access and we're costing lives, whilst cargo bikes and ambulances effortlessly pass by people rapidly jumping out of the way. (4/7)
I see everyone ignoring the evidence I've spent 15 years building a career to try to support. I feel powerless, angry, guilty, hopeless, scared, grief, rage, panic, loss, love, hope, pain, overwhelmed, resolute, resolved, purposeful, purposeless - all in a second (5/7)
But I just say: 'Yeah, it's good' and change the subject and I feel my throat tighten. (6/7)
If you're struggling with your emotions, you might find this project insightful. Maybe it'll help, maybe not. Who knows anymore. (7/7)
If you work at a research institute in London and think you might have space where I could exhibit 'Hope? and how to grieve for the planet', please do send me an email or DM 🙏
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In this paper in @NatureEcoEvo we outline 8 major problems that can occur with traditional ways of reviewing the literature, and provide concrete advice on how to avoid them: rdcu.be/b8pp0
Traditional ways of reviewing the literature may be susceptible to bias and end up giving us incorrect conclusions.
This is of particular concern when reviews address key policy- and practice- relevant questions. (2/23)
Systematic reviews aim to maximise rigour and minimise susceptibility to bias using rigorous methods.
But despite these methods being available, poor reviews are still published: these could be improved with a few key processes; some not prohibitively costly. (3/23)
We agree with others that we now face an 'information crisis' (#infodemic). There is SO much published research we need to find and digest.
Doing this reliably requires systematic review approaches, but even then, it's hugely challenging to find all relevant research.
(2/20)
Academic searching/information retrieval is an art form, and there is no 'perfect' search strategy - it takes careful planning and requires substantial skill and training.
These searches are highly complex and must be used in fit-for-purpose bibliographic databases. (3/20)
Problem 1: Their search string is flawed. The authors say they used a 'systematic' search for articles on Google Scholar. However, their search will not work as intended because:
a) GS doesn't support Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT); b) you cannot nest more than one substring (bracketed set of synonyms) in a search; c) they have not nested geographical synonyms within brackets...