How should you handle criticism as a scientist? Has being "research parasites" turned us into "methodological terrorists"? Susan Fiske, past president of the Association of Psychological Science, launched a name-calling diatribe against internet culture and the reproducibility movement, basically. I discussed that, and came up with 6 tips for handling criticism: Flying Flak and Avoiding ad hominem Response.

Openness and Consequences: Directions in Pre- and Post-Publication Peer Review. The slides of my presentation at #COASP8 - the 8th Conference on Open Access Publishing.

Gender-bias bias: I tackle claims made that women in science have a level playing field. I wish it were true, though - hope I see it in my lifetime. At PubMed Commons: here and here. Two posts at Absolutely Maybe: This is How Research Gender-Bias Bias Works and Unpicking Cherry-Picking. And I joined the conversation at Neuroskeptic's blog on the overall issue of editor and journal responsibility for publishing damaging papers.

Meanwhile, gender and race in conference programs became a heated issue when Jonathan Eisen called out the organizers of Precision Medicine 2017 for an astonishingly male-dominated lineup: me and others interviewed by Meghana Keshavan in STAT.

Speaking of debates: I got into one at PubMed Commons with John Ioannidis on his new paper on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, disagreeing with his position - and updating my own work on this subject with more data about it, too. (This is part of that dissertation work that I'm slogging away at.)

At Statistically Funny, a fresh cartoon and look at ethics committees - plus a new page listing the statistically most popular posts! And a new post on a common trap in reports of scientific studies, especially systematic reviews: The Highs and Lows of the "Good Study".

And I expanded the Wikipedia page on the amazing Jeanne Villepreux-Power, a pioneer marine biologist: she invented the aquarium to further her experiments and studies with molluscs. Born in 1794, she was the daughter of a shoemaker who, at age 18, walked to Paris - over 400 kilometres - to strike out on her own. 




My Olympic/election edition of Absolutely Maybe: Winning! Or Is It? The Science of Winners' Fate.

Back on Statistically Funny: Cupid's Lesser Known Arrow. About the growing problem of "immortal time" or "competing risk" bias.

And I updated a Statistically Funny, too. It's not often that someone does a study that basically proves one of my cartoons is real-life, not ridiculous exaggeration! I'm gonna need a wilder cartoon! On conflicts of interest: updated post.

The risks of giving research a free pass because of the prestige of the journal it's published in: my interview for journalists with Tara Haelle at the Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ).

And I issued another public service announcement: This is not a drill. Repeat: This is *not* a drill.




The day job sneaks in: I was interviewed for Retraction Watch about one of my current major projects - how post-publication activity is handled on PubMed.

Wallpapering over research weakness instead of pinpointing it: an Absolutely Maybe post on Pyschology's Meta-Analysis Problem. (If you're a systematic reviewer, keep the smelling salts handy for this one!)

I tackled another blaze of Alzheimer hype in the media at Absolutely Maybe: The Resilience of Brain Training Hype: ACTIVE Trial Redux

And added to tumblr: all about cause and effect - especially adverse effects, with the help of a dog howling at the moon (or is he?). (Alleged) effects include... Plus 2 old favorites: Disease De-Awareness Day and all about composite endpoints.





Highlight of the month for me was the wonderful annual Evidence Live conference in Oxford. I also got to give the opening keynote. A post from that: If generosity were a scientific norm... Research Nirvana: The Generosity Edition.

Another installment in my series of posts looking at the evidence and issues around social controversies on social media: Unsnarling the Complexity of Naming and Shaming.

And speaking of installments...Would you believe it's been about a year since the Tim Hunt storm? And would you believe it needed another update? So here is an update of an update.... Whatever Happened to #TimHunt?

Comment on PubMed Commons: interesting results that might not be what they seem to be, on the important issue of informed consent in IVF clinics (Canadian ones). That is my 50th comment: somehow fitting that it's a throwback to my many years as a maternity consumer advocate!

Then I also commented on a new systematic review on peer review and its limitations: my blog post on anonymity and open peer review covers a broader scope, and there was no new study found on these questions in the systematic review.

For those attending Evidence Live, I posted links to papers I talked about in the "Best Paper of All Time" session.





What was it about May and discussions about conflicts of interest everywhere? I was on that boat too: with an editorial at PLOS Medicine accompanying a new study on financial relationships between industry and organizations that develop clinical practice guidelines. And a post at PLOS Blogs: A Reader's Guide to Conflicts of Interest in Biomedicine.

Another old favorite refurbished and added to Tumblr: epidemiological melancholy over the power of the anecdote.




Find me on: