Radiation always hits the target I stumbled on this link on the interweb and somehow got the access to their archives (don't ask me how but it involves browser addons, some ad blocking and toggling off inline scripts behind a VPN 🙂 Hype the hype is a classical tactic used by the universities and "researchers" … Continue reading Hype the hype: The New York Times on “curing cancer”
I respectfully disagree with my colleague, Dr Bryan, who otherwise is very articulate. Twitter is a "free-for-all" medium and social media advocates (influencers in their own right) have worked very hard to give it a professional outlook. However, Twitter is not the medium since it was never intended to. Threads will disappear and placing "tweets" … Continue reading How Doctors Learn About Social Media
My standard reaction (actually to most issues!) It is odd that the "institution" of peer review should come up time and again, but sample this- it is unpaid labour, few people "profit" from this and holds no water unless you wish to crow in front of a committee that you have volunteered your "precious time". … Continue reading Is peer review “dead”?
Photo by Andrew Neel on Pexels.com I stumbled on this fascinating post that lays emphasis on the evolution of science. However, the author wishes to bring in the "social revolution" via promotion of skepticism. He questions the belief of "professional bodies" and why other humans place trust in someone with their lives. A measurement revolution … Continue reading Science 2.0: The rise of skepticism
I reproduce the key takeaway below and deserves a particular mention. I hate the academic gatekeeping because it hinders the democratisation of research and discovery. "Editorial discretion" is important in the process but it merits repetition- those are opinions which could "swing" either way. Agreed that no one would want to risk their necks out … Continue reading Academic Publishing: Reform peer review- VI