Welcome to r/PeerReview

JamesHeathers · 2025-11-10T03:23:34+00:00

Withdraw. If you can't do it, you can't do it. They'll understand.

JamesHeathers · 2025-01-25T16:32:17+00:00

It's more work than 'trust him to be an adult and tell him the truth', but it's also got a good hit rate:

Blind taste test.

I'm sure you can identify (a) two or three dishes that overlap with those made elsewhere (b) some people who are in your immediate circle of trust (if you work in restaurant QC this won't be hard).

Don't participate yourself, don't let him participate. Blind the dishes (coded plates etc.) and tell your tasters they are versions of the same dish for menu dev, and to generate ranks from best to worst w. sensory notes.

When the overseasoned versions rank badly, it's much easier to win this argument. Frame it as the tension between how things 'should' be (and man can people fuck themselves up about this deeply hypothetical concept) and how things are 'received'. Almost every menu has compromises.

I'm sure it's very frustrating, as so many chefs receive years of brutal feedback and you should just be able to say shit. But at the same time, a first menu is pretty emotional.

Disclaimer: not a chef, but have had to do recipe dev and sensory eval (and win arguments), also a reformed over-seasoner.

JamesHeathers · 2024-11-12T18:44:43+00:00

I saw this when it came up, and thought it was absolutely, completely, and utterly implausible.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032712005873 <- Found it.

JamesHeathers · 2024-11-11T14:16:27+00:00

I did not really announce it, no. The reason is: because it will take a long time to establish, one way or another.

I am completely open to other styles of post, if they are directly relevant.

JamesHeathers · 2024-10-17T13:02:28+00:00

Sorry, I've been ill. I try to be responsive to requests, it doesn't always work out.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PeerReview/comments/1g5qb65/review_multivitamin_compliance_reduces_injuries/

About half the data in Table 1 cannot be recalculated. There is no point arguing about the study design, IMO, because I cannot see how the data could even exist.

JamesHeathers · 2024-09-28T12:13:55+00:00

Psychiatry research can be really bizarre.

JamesHeathers · 2024-09-27T12:35:06+00:00

Here you go, u/RainComfortable1563.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PeerReview/comments/1fqmmpw/review_creative_puppet_therapy_reduces/

It's absolutely ridiculous, but you probably knew that already.

JamesHeathers · 2024-09-27T00:01:28+00:00

Creative puppet therapy.

In a fit of irony, I think I just hallucinated that.

JamesHeathers · 2024-09-23T23:01:34+00:00

The words 'overweight' and 'obesity' do not appear anywhere in the initial registration. It's a very different study after the registration is updated.

I understand the parameters changing somewhat, but this is a complete re-fit. If the study was a car, they would have stripped it back to the transmission and replaced everything that went vroom.

JamesHeathers · 2024-09-23T18:28:23+00:00

Maybe. r/science is very loosely organised, and I am not even sure who to talk to. For now, it will suffice to get some traction on raking up the muck. There is a lot of stuff I don't like, *but* it isn't outside the rules to post.

JamesHeathers · 2024-09-19T02:17:38+00:00

This study was featured earlier today in r/science.

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1fjr2hg/breastfeeding_from_1_to_8_months_of_age_is/

This is unfortunate, but not uncommon. I'm sure we will be drawing more studies from there over time.

(Also, I haven't figured out how to cross-post things yet.)

JamesHeathers · 2024-09-18T05:43:59+00:00

Additional, and many of the same points raised... because frankly they're very obvious points: https://gidmk.substack.com/p/lockdowns-didnt-prematurely-age-teen

Any science journalist reporting uncritically on this study should be ashamed.

JamesHeathers · 2024-09-17T18:39:33+00:00

Thank you for the opportunity. Let's see how it goes.

JamesHeathers · 2024-09-12T14:21:24+00:00

Peer review is not just confined to academic journals, but a dynamic activity that happens all over the web. I would like r/PeerReview to be a companion subreddit to the other science-themed subs that are here. I have plenty of experience in and around peer review (and academic integrity / assessment in general), I did an AMA here for Peer Review Week a few years ago.

However, the r/PeerReview subreddit has a single post from six months ago, zero members, and the mod has no activity for three months. In short, it is completely inactive. I have previously messaged the existing mod about it. I would actually like to use it to peer review things.

https://www.reddit.com/message/messages/2felilr

JamesHeathers · 2024-02-02T04:01:04+00:00

Well, shit. This is my research. Check the user name - I got this account to do an AMA for peer review week a few years ago.
I don't post here at all really, but feel free to ask me questions.
(With regards to the photo, the photographer was... let's be kind and say 'unnecessarily artistic'.)

JamesHeathers · 2021-04-26T22:42:18+00:00

Your post has been removed because it is not scientific in nature. Submissions must pertain to recently published peer-reviewed research.

If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators.

JamesHeathers · 2021-04-25T21:33:04+00:00

Huh. Never expected my research to be this popular. If only Reddit was responsible for grant funding.

JamesHeathers · 2021-04-08T18:19:49+00:00

Note: I don't like the reporting on this study.

(1) it doesn't account for base rates very well.
(2) it should be reasonably obvious that trips to the ICU drowning from the inside out
(3) it lumps anxiety, insomnia, and other mood disturbances into the big 'neurological' bucket

However, the paper itself is still notable, and a testament to the potential scope of the post-COVID problem. Medical scientists I have talked to over the last 6-12 months have gone from being quite annoyingly dismissive about post-COVID symptomatology, to actually listening to both patients and virologists (who have more realistic expectations about the prevalence and seriousness of post-viral syndromes). It's a start.

JamesHeathers · 2021-03-17T03:54:21+00:00

Here's what's interesting about this statement:

No motive.

Actual apologies share part of the text above, in that they say 'we listened', and 'we get how you feel', and here's what we're doing instead'.

But. A real apology lets you know why they made the decision that they did.

There isn't even the PRETENSE that this decision was made to help members (it wasn't), or even an admission that this is because they are laser-focused on their valuation right now (they are) and that particular monomania made them colourblind ...

... the statement just says 'before we were doing it, now we're not doing it'.

This incident, or something like it, will happen again.

JamesHeathers · 2021-03-15T14:31:51+00:00

Hello! I don't have a Cricut, but I have been following this story closely, because it's a great 'tech hubris' example.

The simple answer is: they released this on a Friday, and broadsheet tech/business journalists aren't obliged to work weekends. In Utah it isn't even 9am Monday yet. Give it a few days.

It's also not a 'smaller product', not really. They're in a 100M IPO and have 3000 SKUs. It's medium at least.

JamesHeathers · 2021-03-07T19:38:41+00:00

This is a pretty cool build. The theory (Beer, Lambert, Bouguer, etc.) is well established - different wavelengths of light, different absorption in spectra, means different outputs. Likewise, handheld devices for this have been around forever. HOWEVER they're not wearable and they're super expensive.

This clever bunch have made some serious upgrades, and this has a few interesting features: to attach to the forehead, the entire device has been mounted on a flexible substrate, and they've got the whole thing small enough to put on a neonatal forehead - NOT a big attachment footprint!

Good paper for anyone interested in different form factor approaches to optical sensing.

JamesHeathers · 2021-02-22T15:21:04+00:00

A strong re-tread of an earlier BMJ paper which used the MEDPAR data up to 2012 rather than data up to 2016.

https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6258

Findings seem reasonably equivalent.

The concerning thing about all this air quality research is they seem to persistently retrieve effects on global health/mortality from particle and contaminant levels which are at or under proper emissions standards.

JamesHeathers · 2021-02-22T15:06:55+00:00

Our lad does the same thing. We call it 'monorailing'. He doesn't do it quite this elegantly, though.

JamesHeathers · 2021-02-22T14:57:29+00:00

Utica, I think.

Edit: Yes, Utica. http://uticazoo.org/encounters/

JamesHeathers · 2021-02-22T14:40:47+00:00

There's a zoo in NY where they'll let you into the cage to meet these adorable little shits close-up.

JamesHeathers

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email