Biologist, cofounder and CEO of @protocolsIO (he/him)
May 17, 2020 • 5 tweets • 3 min read
Let's take a side-by-side look at a bad peer reviewed paper versus a bad preprint. Published paper claimed erroneously 200x higher COVID-10 spread and preprint 50x-85x higher spread.
Which is more damaging? 1/
Compare the disclaimers on the paper and preprint. Look at the way the paper's senior author is emphasizing "peer reviewed". 2/
Jan 13, 2020 • 10 tweets • 10 min read
There is an article in @WSJ today against me wsj.com/articles/cance…. My timeline is now filled with insults and questions. I will not be responding individually, hence this thread. 1/@WSJ The @NASorg sounds like the National Academy of Science, but it's not. It is a conservative political advocacy group and it is organizing a climate change denial conference. I've been warning people not to attend it.
This thread is going to be a plea for nuance and civility in open access/science discussions. I do this, realizing that Twitter rewards and pushes for extremes, hyperbole, provocation.
I know this is an uphill battle, but please bear with with me. 1/
If you want to say "science is broken", pause and ask yourself, "is it?" There's daily progress w/ new discoveries, treatments, etc.
Millions of hard-working scientists are doing their best; don't dismiss their efforts.
Instead consider, "Science works but can work better." 2/
Jul 30, 2018 • 8 tweets • 5 min read
Folks, what are different definitions of reproducibility v. robustness v. replicability that you have seen? (Please RT)
I don't know about 50 years ago, but there's plenty of evidence that our methods sections today are typically insufficient for reproducing the published work. "We used a modified version of paper XYZ" and "contact author for details" are common. 1/
Key early lesson from the @elizabethiorns@BrianNosek Cancer Reproducibility project is that the protocols are often missing. 2/ vox.com/science-and-he…nature.com/news/cancer-re…theatlantic.com/science/archiv…
