A reporter sent me a Jama paper and asked me what I thought . . .

My reply: Thanks for sending. I can’t be sure about everything they’re doing but the paper looks reasonable to me. I expect there are various ways that the analysis could be improved, but on a quick look I don’t see anything obviously wrong with it, and the authors seem to know what they are doing. The findings seem important, and the results are mapped clearly enough that once the results are out there, others can comment if they see problems.

The only thing is that I think it would be better if the authors just posted all their graphs online, including but not limited to the graphs in that published paper. I really don’t like the whole embargo thing as it seems to encourage the massive publicity of results before they can be checked by the wider science and policy communities.

5 thoughts on “A reporter sent me a Jama paper and asked me what I thought . . .

  1. Sorry, do you mean JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association, or another journal of which I am unaware. If you are referring to another publication, please supply the reference?

  2. “I really don’t like the whole embargo thing as it seems to encourage the massive publicity of results before they can be checked by the wider science and policy communities”

    Here in the UK, we have an outfit called the Science Media Service which often gets hold of papers under embargo and circulates them among subject experts for quotes that the journalists can then work into their stories. The embargo system is then quite useful as it gives journalists the confidence they can wait to get these comments without getting jumped by their rivals.

    I think there’s a similar service just started up in the US; with luck they’ll set up a similar system.

    That said, many of the subject experts aren’t too hot on stats, so one does see stuff like non-significant results automatically interpreted as no effect etc.

    • “That said, many of the subject experts aren’t too hot on stats, so one does see stuff like non-significant results automatically interpreted as no effect etc.”

      +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *