I feel satisfied (now)!
:-))))
Igor
PS. Incompetence and stupidity always frustrate me.
ann sanfedele Thu, 28 Jan 2021 14:40:41 -0800 wrote:
but how do you really feel ?? :-)
ann
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
This is a #@%^&*+ dumb article! :-)
(And full of bovine scatology.)
On a serious note, this is a questionable quality article relying on
questionable (IMHO - incorrect!) research results (conclusions).
I have discussed this article yesterday and today with a friend who actually
works in medical research. We guessed that most likely the journalist was
given an assignment to write something by the deadline (possibly on the
subject), so she googled something and came up with some superficial
conclusions, without much of critical thinking, and got paid for that
mumbo-jumbo.
Besides having some wrong conclusions, what also adds to that impression is
that the journalist does not seem to demonstrate understanding of how
scientific research (publications) works: One of the referenced papers is a
manuscript at the stage when it was submitted for publication. I actually
have doubts if the journalist has actually verified whether it was published
in a peer-reviewed journal. (I checked, it was.) [*]
Now, about the underlying research:
At least the first research article quoted by the journalist is flawed.
(I am reluctant to analyze in detail all of them.) [**]
The biggest problem about it is non-representative choice of the study
participants. They had three studies, but all of them used college students
taking psychology courses:
"A total of 43 participants (30 women) were recruited from introductory
psychology courses at a small liberal arts college <...> Their ages ranged
from 18 to 22 years ..."
"A total of 49 participants (34 women) were recruited from introductory
psychology courses at a small liberal arts college <...>. Their ages ranged
from 18 to 22 years ..."
"Participants were 126 college students aged 18–38 years (86 women <...>)
enrolled in an introductory psychology course at a small liberal arts
college."
That is a very narrow category of the study participants, with a higher than
average educational/cultural/social/... level.
I am sure if they took people from other socio-demographic groups, especially
from the lower social levels, they would've seen quite different results.
To summarize, the study reported is not necessarily representative for the
entire society. And the authors fail to acknowledge that fact.
(If I were the referee, I would've pointed this out, and would not have
recommended this article for publication unless a clear explicit statement
about that serious limitation is made. - I've done similar recommendations on
multiple occasions - in my field.)
This is a good example of how a [wrong] message from unscrupulous scientists
can be amplified by low-quality journalists. This type of situations
undermine the role of science in our society (leading to a wide-spread
skepticism toward the science in the society).
My apology for being a party pooper... :-)
=================
[*]
Let me clarify this point for those who might not be familiar with how
scientific publications work. The author(s) submits a manuscript to the
editor for publication. The editor takes a look - to determine who would be
good reviewers, and sends it to those for review. Based on the reviewers'
comments and recommendations, the editor makes a decision: to publish, to
reject, or to give an opportunity to make improvements, in which case, the
article can go through an additional, similar, round of review.
I've refereed many manuscripts. A significant portion of those were not
suitable for publication without significant revision. Some of the
manuscripts should have never been published (and usually they weren't).
So, the bottom line is that a peer review is an important tool to weed out
improper articles. So if an article hasn't passed it, - its results and
conclusions might not be reliable.
However, it is important to recognize that the peer-review is not a
guarantee. Moreover, there are peer-reviewed publications that are wrong.
Some of those should not have passed through the peer-review, others were
found to be wrong by the subsequent studies stimulated by them. The latter is
a normal scientific discovery process.)
[**] I am not claiming all conclusions are wrong, - but even some of them
being wrong make the entire article wrong.
Cheers,
Igor
ann sanfedele Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:41:36 -0800 wrote:
great article - works for me regularly
ann
On 1/27/2021 10:03 AM, Bill wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/health/swearing-benefits-wellness/index.html
It definitely makes me feel better....
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
