Kevin J. Black @kjbinstl@qoto.org

A Cell (IF = 67) paper claimed that vasopressin worsened COVID. The editor was notified of inaccuracies in the paper, but they refused to take any action—unless a replication refuted the results.

The critics took this challenge on, and did not find support for the original study's findings. Yet, the editor still has not issued a correction and stopped responding to emails.

The original authors have since had 5 other papers retracted.

https://retractionwatch.com/2022/12/29/researchers-lost-five-papers-soon-after-scientists-critiqued-another-of-their-papers-in-retraction-watch/
@academicchatter @OpenScience

Anti-doping is a fascinating field that brings together biology, physiology, chemistry, social science, sport, policy, law, and other specialties to help keep competition fair and protect the health of athletes.

In this new podcast episode, I spoke with Jane Rumble, CEO of UK Anti-Doping, about anti-doping efforts in the UK, how they are continuing to develop and implement new innovations, the importance of scientific research in anti-doping, and more.

https://cleancompetition.org/2022/12/20/92-clean-sport-programs-and-initiatives-at-uk-anti-doping-jane-rumble/

#AntiDoping #biology #physiology #chemistry #science #research #sport #policy #law #podcast #podcasts #innovation

“The political scientists and the historians tell us that the best sign of a successful coup coming is a recently failed coup where the coup plotters get to diagram the weaknesses in the existing structure, and they are emboldened if not held accountable for what they did.”

#Jan6 #JamieRaskin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpkiTe_zTI

Sagittal cut with 100 µm resolution.
#neurology #neuroimaging

Elsevier appears to be collecting and monetizing our personal data, sometimes without our consent. The data they collect can be used to "extrapolate core working hours, vacation times, and other patterns of a person’s life."

What can we do?

Over 20,000 researchers are refusing to publish, review, or edit for Elsevier. You can also ask them to delete your "non-integral" personal data: https://www.elsevier.com/legal/privacy-policy/data-request

Article by @eikofried https://eiko-fried.com/welcome-to-hotel-elsevier-you-can-check-out-any-time-you-like-not/?=IwAR3DJSxwVn4OQB_HcRr8uNS1szepCAWy_9wbJo3Hi_ZcfdBN-trs6ndgmJo
#OpenScience @academicchatter

Love it 🤣

https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/twitter-owner-elon-musk-driving-user-growth-mastodon-rcna62832

#TwitterMigration #mastodon

The validity (and ultimately translational inferences) of brain-phenotype associations requires consideration of potential noise sources like head motion. Very excited to have been part of this excellent work (led by Ben Kay with @nicodosenbach) on this topic.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.16.520797v1

Next generation of GPT bot rumored to so realistic that when you ask it to write something important to meet a deadline it goes ahead and cleans your house.

Just a friendly reminder to fellow academics that, while we are all used to be constantly critical in our assessments, it is still perfectly acceptable to also reach out to authors when we actually like their work, even if it is just to let them know.

If not done already, give it a try. The worst that can happen is that you provoke someone to smile and have a delightful moment.

Grammar and punctuation humor is among the better humors.

Wow, wow, WOW 🤩🤩

#RStudio #RTutor
---
RT @Physacourses
This is just amazing!
Have a look at RTutor (http://RTutor.ai). It can generate & test R code just by “chatting” with it.
RTutor will then generate functional code to answer your question, making it easy for those without R experience
#RStats #MachineLearning #DataScience
https://twitter.com/Physacourses/status/1602730176688832513

Peergatory (noun): the period of suffering while waiting for peer reviews

#PeerReview #Academia @academicchatter

Just generated three ChatGPT short answers on social science prompts that I might expect in undergrad exams. The results weren’t outstanding, but they weren’t bad—definitely a passing grade. The fact that they weren’t really bad or really great makes them stand out even less—they’re on the high end of the fat part of the bell curve, right where a cheater would want to be. Most troubling, they sailed past plagiarism detection (6%, 2%, 0% of text flagged).