Lovely, comprehensive commentary. Am I concerned about damaging the academic publishing industry? For many reasons, not at all. The sheer amount of garbage that get published even in the most prestigious journals has done and continues to do enormous harm. The untold $billions of research funding money wasted on this bunk is a travesty. Likewise universities so focussed on quantity over quality.
Glad you mentioned checking out the $ conflicts of interest. For me, that is the second thing I check on a paper (after the title). If there are any fCOI, I regard it as nearly worthless. The influence of $ in psychiatry is massive, and the distorting effect on the research has been well documented by Erick Turner, Ed Pigott, Bob Whitaker, and many others.
Lovely, comprehensive commentary. Am I concerned about damaging the academic publishing industry? For many reasons, not at all. The sheer amount of garbage that get published even in the most prestigious journals has done and continues to do enormous harm. The untold $billions of research funding money wasted on this bunk is a travesty. Likewise universities so focussed on quantity over quality.
Glad you mentioned checking out the $ conflicts of interest. For me, that is the second thing I check on a paper (after the title). If there are any fCOI, I regard it as nearly worthless. The influence of $ in psychiatry is massive, and the distorting effect on the research has been well documented by Erick Turner, Ed Pigott, Bob Whitaker, and many others.
Is there some sort of flow chart identifying which checklist to use? (No, I am not kidding.)
I'm sure there are some out there but not sure which is best!
Here is one link from SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) that I just found -https://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/study_design.pdf
https://www.sign.ac.uk/what-we-do/methodology/checklists/
There may be more comprehensive ones I'm not aware of
Many thanks!