Figure 1: Pink Manolo Blahnik Mary Janes. $625 at Bergdorf Goodman, offered as a reference for assessing the hotness of science.
A few days ago Dr. Isis posted her thoughts on an article from the New England Journal of Medicine entitled Shifts to and from Daylight Saving Time and Incidence of Myocardial Infarction, that she found intriguing. You might remember that Dr. Isis offered concerns about the generalized interpretation of data Dr. Isis thought was tremendously interesting but also probably more subtly nuanced. Dr. Isis's thoughts earned her a response from the article's authors, Drs. Janszky and Ljung, in the comment thread. Dr. Isis would like to address a particular portion of their comment. First, I want to make sure that you all take a moment and read the authors' response:
Hi. We are the authors of the much criticized paper. We would like to share a few thoughts with you.
1. There are no studies liked by everyone. We were lucky that Dr. Isis was not among the reviewers or editors at NEJM.
2. We wonder whether you have ever tried to publish a research letter somewhere. The number of citations (maximum 5!) and the number of words are strictly limited. Of course we are familiar with studies on circadian rhythms and cardiovascular physiology. There was simply no space to talk more about biological rhythms than we actually did.
Perhaps you can also read the literature of the studies of the DST changes.
Also, we feel that you seem not fully understand the principles of triggering and risk factors. Our sincere suggestion for you is to consider taking a course in epidemiology. You might benefit a lot from getting familiar with some basic concepts in our science. As a vascular biologist you might need to know how to interpret correctly an epidemiological finding.
3. There can be many other explanations and pathways not written here (again we had a strict limit). The reviewers and editors agreed to our interpretation as probably the most likely one. So were experts in this field all over the world who commented our study so far. We would actually encourage you to write a comment to NEJM. NEJM is well known for its devotion for scientific debates on recently published papers. That would be a normal way to debate and discuss scientific findings. We would also have a possibility to answer on an "equal ground".
Greetings from Sweden,
Imre Janszky and Rickard Ljung
First, Dr. Isis thanks Drs. Janszky and Ljung for posting a response and thought it important her readers not miss the opportunity to read it. On her drive into work Dr. Isis pondered if she would respond to the comment and, if so, how she would respond.
I have decided not to respond to the portion of the comment that relates directly to the science in this post, including the authors' sincere (but snarky) suggestion that I take an epidemiology class. I am sure that, if I were to take the course the authors suggest, I would learn that researchers never over-interpret epidemiological or observational data only to later find their conclusions don't hold in controlled settings. Ever. Ever. Ever. But, we can continue that discussion in the comments thread if it tickles your little fancies.
What I would like to post about here is the authors' comment that, if I disagreed with their study, the appropriate place to take my disagreement is the New England Journal of Medicine and not On Becoming and Domestic and Laboratory Goddess. The authors write:
NEJM is well known for its devotion for scientific debates on recently published papers. That would be a normal way to debate and discuss scientific findings. We would also have a possibility to answer on an "equal ground".
Perhaps Janszky and Ljung are correct in that a letter to the editor of NEJM would be the "normal" way to discuss scientific findings, but that doesn't mean it is the "correct" way to discuss scientific findings. Dr. Isis has written before about her thoughts on Open Access, but part of what brought her into the science blogosphere is the opportunity to openly discuss science in a completely novel format. The fact that Dr. Isis's thoughts were posted on her personal blog, I would argue, makes them no more or less valid than if she wrote them on fancy letterhead and sent them into NEJM. Do other blog authors think that thoughts relating to scientific findings posted on their personal blogs are less valid, or that the discussion of scientific findings is inappropriate? Is it the blog as a medium that the authors of the paper find inappropriate, or did they send a letter to every writer who discussed their findings outside of the realm of the traditional scientific publication? Or maybe only the writers who sought to criticize their interpretation and at 8am this morning were on the first page of the results when one Googled the authors' paper? Perhaps it is Dr. Isis's previously discussed pseudonymity the authors object to>
I am not sure what the authors mean about "equal ground." It seems to me that the authors have had the opportunity to publicly air their disagreements in the same forum that Dr. Isis used -- doubly so as Dr. Isis reposted their thoughts in a separate post. In fact, not only is this discussion occurring on entirely equal ground, but the ground may be more equal than it would be in the NEJM because the discussion is unfiltered by anyone other than the "corresponding authors."
Or perhaps people genuinely think that science bloggers like Dr. Isis should stick to shoes and leave the science to the journals?
39 comments:
If the only "normal" way to discuss scientific findings is through letters to the editors of the various journals, could the others please tell me the point of attending conferences, journal clubs, seminars, keystone meetings etc. Any discussion is good discussion
I agree with ScientistMother.. Paws down!
Amazingly enough only a handful of emails (and never on-blog comments, iirc) complaining about my discussion of scientific articles. Or perhaps not so amazing given that I talk about actual science only rarely.
I've had my comments described as unfair, slanderous, out of line, etc and I recall at least one suggesting the issues would be better taken up at an upcoming scientific meeting.
Fascinating isn't it? The exact same things that get said (frequently) in the paper review process, at scientific presentations and for sure in the hallways after the scientific presentations are somehow beyond the pale when placed on a blog.
While I see no problem with blogging your scientific thoughts about the article in question, I somewhat agree with their suggestion to write a comment on their article in the journal.
The primary difference I see between these two avenues for communication is the audience. While I do not generally read the NEJM, I do avidly read "On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess...", similarly, I'm sure that many readers of NEJM do not read OBDALG. As my background is not in epidemiology, physiology or anything that moves of it's own power and cannot be approximated as a sphere in a vacuum, I take the goddesses word more or less at face value, maybe learn a thing or two, and move along. I cannot adequately contribute to a scientific debate about epidemiology, but I like shoes and admire the goddess and enjoy being exposed to things beyond my field, so I read. However, the readers of NEJM will likely have stronger opinions on both the article and Dr. Isis' implication of oversimplification/overinterpretation, and perhaps this is what is meant by "equal playing field". Or perhaps it is the use of psudonym here which relieves one from staking their reputation on ones claims. Maybe the authors were just annoyed that they came across your critique by chance and would not otherwise have been able to respond.
While I feel the "blog-o-sphere" is a fantastic forum for discussion of all kinds (and you have rightly given the authors response due attention to this end), so are formal journals, conferences, seminars, journal clubs etc... And if you feel strongly that what you blogged about their article, perhaps it is well taken that you bring out the discussion where the more relevant audience is present.
However, the authors seem overly defensive. Open critique is part of science. Tough. And length restrictions are no excuse. I'm afraid those arguments likely wouldn't fly in the forum they suggest you take this up in...
w00t Scientistmother!
I would argue that a blog discussion about a paper can be googled and found just as easily by a grant review panel, a prospective grad student or postdoc, and a tenure review/hiring committee just like finding the actual paper from journal website. Impact is impact these days. "normal" discussion went out the window long ago.
I think the authors are out of their league. They don't seem to realize that people will talk about their work whether they wish it or not. That's really the whole point of publication---disseminate your research findings, let others tear it up. NEJM will be able to publish a few well-chosen letters. I'm not going to restrict my discussion of research to letters to the editor, nor should anyone else.
If the blogosphere is such an inappropriate medium, why do the authors even care?
This is science communication 2.0, folks. Get with it!
Hi Dr. Isis,
While I agree with other posters that the NEJM authors need to accept that their findings will be discussed (and even criticized) by others, I want to point out that discussion on this blog is not 'equal', in the sense that you (and I and the rest of us) are anonymous, while they are not. In fact I commend the authors for coming over to the blog and trying to start a discussion.
Having dealt with journals, I am sympathetic to the authors' statement that length restrictions kept them from a fuller discussion - in that sense, blogs and the like are an ideal forum to extend the conversation.
The barriers to real open exchange however, are the anonymity, and the decentralization (e.g. how do authors and commenters find each other?) - some journals/meeting organizers have tried to remedy this by offering the ability to comment on their sites, but I would venture that this has not been wholly successful so far in generating a robust dialog.
Biogeek
PhysicsChick, I am intrigued by that te audience of the blog determines whether it is appropriate to openly discuss scientific finding. If I never blogged about shoes or posted silly pictures, would it become appropriate? What if I wrote a purely scientific-sounding blog?
BioGeek, I remember thanking the authors for their comment in my post. My entire point, however, is that I think that we are all smack in middle of a new medium in which scientific discussions can (and should) happen. I think a group of people interested in discussing the issue have already found each other. You got here, didn't you? Do we really need to be centralized?
Is my pseudonymity really that big of a barrier? Would you place more faith in my interpreation if I included the 10 letters that come after my name to denote my academic degrees and clinical certifications? And at that point isn't it reviewing our peers and not peer review?
Sorry, that was "I am intrigued by the idea that the audience of the blog determines whether it is appropriate to openly discuss scientific finding."
That's what Dr. Isis gets for typing in a hurry between meetings.
Hi again. Thanks for opening a new post based on our reflection. But there is some misunderstanding. We did not write that a comment letter is the "only" way, but "a" way. Of course you can and should keep up with your blog as well (and conferences, journal clubs, seminars, keystone meetings etc).
What was meant by "normal", that a teddy bear on a toilet and writing that this is the way how we interpret data or calling us "jokesters" is a quite an unsual way. At least for us this was the very first time to see our names in this context...
physics*chick:"Open critique is part of science." We wholeheartedly agree. That's why we wanted a real critique...
"length restrictions are no excuse" If you have no space to cite someone, you simply have no space to cite someone... If the limit is 5 citations than that's it.
Rock on, scientistmother!
As someone who does a LOT of paper reviews of various kinds on my blog, I often appreciate when the authors come over. Most of the time they take my comments very seriously, answer questions I might have, and treat me as their equal in the field. I think that the authors of the paper might be over-reacting.
Everyone now gets Tables of Contents for their favorite journals in their inboxes, why not do relevant blog RSS feeds as well? It's another way to promote discussion.
And as for pseudonymity, it is not WHO I am when I say something, it is WHAT I am saying that is important. I think it would be very wrong of authors to dismiss my comments on their paper because they sit there and say "oh, this is just some grad student". Whether I am some grad student or not, my comments should be taken into consideration if they are valid, well-thought out, and carefully expressed. It should be obvious from my comments that I have some experience in the field, and what position I occupy should not make a difference. How can we open up science to the public and get the public interested and understand advances taking place if we refuse to talk with those outside of our little cliques?
Yes, I found you and this thread Dr. Isis, but if there are 500 blogs out there discussing vascular biology (heaven forbid!), how is a poor author supposed to keep track of who is posting teddy bears on toilets describing their work?
Also, my point about anonymity, is related to the above picture. If you and me were signing our real names, don't you think the tone (and maybe the substance?) of our discussion would be different?
respectfully
Biogeek
I would go so far as to argue that papers getting a lot of play in the main stream media should be discussed by bloggers. Most people don't have access to the most recent issues of NEJM (only a subset of articles & letters are free), and, even if they did, don't have the necessary expertise to evaluate studies themselves. Since the media reports on all studies with a catchy claim as if they are of equal quality, the only way interested members of the general public might learn otherwise is if critiques are easily Googleable. And blogs are a great way to do that.
That doesn't fix the problem that the MSM is so credulous, and that science reporting often consists of quoting press releases verbatim. But at least with blogs the critiques are available for people willing to look for them.
Sweet, sweet Biogeek. Would it be different? I would refer you to my dear friend, Abel Pharmboy for that portion of the discussion.
But, more importantly, should it be any different?
oh, Dr. Isis called me "sweet"!
OK sure I agree an interesting and at least somewhat valid discussion can be had while anonymous. And I think it is great to open it up to people that are not necessarily scrutinizing the Correspondence/Letters sections of various and sundry journals and publications. And it is also refreshing to see a more open discussion that is not mitigated by things like pesky editors.
But it is also true that it can be a bit unfair to authors (if they can even find the discussion), to "defend" their work against people that are anonymous. It is not equal ground.
But, Biogeek, you still haven't told me why. Authors need never defend "themselves" as individuals, but the quality of their data and conclusions. Why does it matter who calls either into question? And why does it matter if I am a fellow scientist or a tax payer who is funding their work (ok, theiy're in Sweden and I'm in the US, but cut me some slack)? Isn't that one of the points of Open Access?
Dr. Isis,
Because when the authors sign their names, they are fully responsible for their comments. When you and I are anonymous, we are not fully accountable for our comments.
Anonymous discussions are more wide-ranging and creative, but Science (as you probably know) is built on reputations and academics are pretty stern judges. With funding/competition being what it is these days, people are reluctant to "rock the boat". So a conservatism creeps in when you have to append your name to something.
The authors are subject to this restriction; the rest of us are not. So it is not a discussion of equals.
Also, I am not saying that only scientists should be qualified to discuss - of course not! Yes the research is being funded by the public, which has a right to know how its $ or kroner or whatever is being spent. But science can be pretty specialized, and as you know the way you express something varies with the audience. Certainly non-scientists have the right to question findings, but if you know what their background is, that does make the communication easier.
yours
Biogeek, off to dispense Halloween treats
BioGeek - Not that I would ever try to speak for Dr.Isis, but I would guess that her criticism would be the exact same if she was not pseudonymous. You may not like the image she conjured up, but I have seen and heard papers referred to in a worse way. Some researchers will find data bullshit, idiotic and completely false. What exactly did you find wrong with the tone of the post? I felt it had a very Jon Stuartesque tone which is much less hostile than I have witnessed at conferences. As others have said, it is more important to exam the validity of the critique than who made the critique.
In regards to the authors being able to defend their work, they would do that with follow-up studies, conference presentations etc. I have yet to experience a journal club where we conferenced in the authors to defend the work I was presenting. I have and will continue to question why the hell x lab did y instead of z, did they not consider c when I present a paper in journal club. This is just one BIG journal club
You should be able to criticize their results, but you shouldn't be surprised if they don't like the jokes. Saying that harsher criticism happens at conferences doesn't make much difference (people might call someone's work idiotic, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do). Criticism should be rigourous but not disrespectful if you want the best response. You implied in your comments that their interpretation was not even serious, so of course they will be defensive.
All this is not to say that mixing joking and criticism isn't a good thing to do on a blog, just don't pretend that it's all about hard facts and they just don't get the new science communication on web 2.0 because there's some snark in part of their response. You set the tone in the original post.
Finally, as to whether this is equal footing, I would say that clearly it's not. You have much more control over where the discussion heads. Look at this post for example. Rather than discussing the science, you started a discussion (which I admittedly find totally interesting) about how and where science should be discussed.
Dr. Isis,
If you claim "should it be any different?" then why not reveal yourself??
It seems you were challanged by the authors who have full right to suggest a different ground than your blog. It is up to you to accept the challenge :)
Dr. Isis has not played "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours" since she was in kindergarten.
Dear Dr(?) Isis,
I am the second author of the now world famous NEJM letter. I totally agree with "open access" and open discussions on research papers. I also vote for non-blinded review processes where the reviewers are known to the authors.
I am a hard working person, and would rate myself as a serious researcher. I can discuss on a layman level or on a more scientific level ( though always with a disadvantage as non-English speaker). But I would like to be respectfully treated.
Please explainto me how I should explain to my kid asking " Dad, look at the teddybear on the toilet - what is that?" - should I tell him "well that is me and my colleque at work?".
For me it is a bit difficult to see if you are most upset with our research on a scientific level (method, analysis etc) or if it is the usual "what use for our tax money is this to society". As you apperently cannot be to familiar with epidemiological research it would help the further discussion to know a bit about on what level we are discussing on. And interpreting your text and choice of picture I would say that it so far is pretty close the level of my kids and their friends in kindergarten :-)
Dear Dr (?) Ljung(?) [at least, I will take for granted that you are Dr. Ljung although you post as "KingClown." Considering the largest number of visits came from Stockholm yersterday, I'll take for granted that you are],
To get to the heart of the issue (pardon the pun), what has your feathers ruffled is the picture of the bear on a toilet. Fair enough. Dr. Isis writes a satirical blog in which she addresses the roles women scientists play at home and in academia and discusses topics she finds scientifically interesting. And she intersperses her posts with patently absurd pictures. That's how I would explain it, Dr. Ljung, to the precious wee Ljung children. Not to overstate my own importance, but is there really any difference between what I do here and a political cartoon in the New Yorker potraying one of our political figures, Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update, or (and I hesitate to draw the parallel myself) The Daily Show? Dr. Isis is not the first to use satire to discuss topics that are controversial and or/sensitive.
But what I find much more offensive than a picture of a bear sitting on a potty (which is actually kind of adorable) is the assertion both you and Dr. Janszky have made -- that because I find a portion of your paper that I disagree with, I clearly must ignorant. You write:
As you apperently cannot be to familiar with epidemiological research it would help the further discussion to know a bit about on what level we are discussing on.
Dr. Janszky writes:
Also, we feel that you seem not fully understand the principles of triggering and risk factors. Our sincere suggestion for you is to consider taking a course in epidemiology. You might benefit a lot from getting familiar with some basic concepts in our science.
You might be worried about a picture of a children's toy performing a biological function, but I am much more worried about the assumption that a disagreeing party must clearly be ignorant. I can say that I believe your presentation of your interpretation is flawed and you can counter that with logical discussion. I can't counter being called ignorant, can I?
But, finally, I will spell out one last time my disagreement with the correspondence. You present what I believe to be a very important data set that could be used to generate hypotheses testable in controlled experiments. That is the difference between the epidemiological work you present and experimental science -- a control group. But any basic scientist with a class in, you know, science under their belt would know that. Then you make the following statement:
The most plausible explanation for our findings is the adverse effect of sleep deprivation on cardiovascular health. According to experimental studies, this adverse effect includes the predominance of sympathetic activity and an increase in proinflammatory cytokine levels.
And what I said in my original post is that, while I don't discount the possibility of sleep deprivation as the most plausible explanation, you did not examine sleep as a risk factor in your study. And you certainly do not compare the risk associated with the changing clocks to the risk of other things that increase sympathetic activity (like exercise?) or cause a "proinflammatory state." You've gone on to speculate even further as to the role sleep deprivation may be playing in the popular media where the letters after your name offer you more credibility with the public. What Dr. Isis is says is, "Whoa! Why don't we pause in our speculation until we have more evidence from which to draw a sounder conclusion?" Dr. Isis's conclusion from your data is that it is intriguing and compelling and useful for generating hypotheses, but that more studies are needed in order to elucidate the mechanism by which risk is increased and that it is premature to discuss the "most plausible."
And I do think we use the term "pro-inflammatory state" much too heavy-handedly without always understanding what it means.
And with that, Dr. Isis is off for a cup of coffee and to load up the Isis family for a road trip.
My best regards,
Dr.(?) Isis(?0
Thanks for the comments. ( I felt my nickname is pretty on spot for this blog - don’t you agree?)
ISIS“And you certainly do not compare the risk associated with the changing clocks to the risk of other things that increase sympathetic activity (like exercise?) “
Our assumption was that “other things” would not differ on the week after the transition from the control period weeks. Exercise - yes, but it is actually getting a bit darker in the morning in Sweden in the spring transition - so an increase in the morning jogging does not really hold as an explanation.
ISIS“You've gone on to speculate even further as to the role sleep deprivation may be playing in the popular media where the letters after your name offer you more credibility with the public.”
I would say that it is the peer-review and credibility of NEJM that has made this possible. Isis - you could have done the same study and it would also have been published. ( though I must admit that I don’t know the internal review at NEJM and if they look at our previous publications, - a pubmed search will inform you that we actually have published a lot, though not explicitly on sleep).
ISIS“Dr. Isis's conclusion from your data is that it is intriguing and compelling and useful for generating hypotheses, but that more studies are needed in order to elucidate the mechanism by which risk is increased… “
We clearly state this in the conclusion.
I urge you to write a comment on our paper in NEJM, if you are an experienced researcher in the field you will have no problem with getting it accepted.
And if you wish to email us we will stick to total discretion and never ever reveaal your name.
Hi Dr. Isis,
I am the first author (Imre Janszky - so you do not have to guess or speculate my identity as you did for my colleague).
First of all I do apologize if you were offended by the idea of an
epidemiology course. To educate yourself a little bit in epidemiology
as a vascular biologist sounds for me like a useful thing. I took some
vascular biology course myself (wish I would have taken more!) If I
understand you correctly, you admit yourself that you are not very
educated at this part of science. But if that's the case, personally I
would never take such an extremely confident and firm opinion about an
epidemiological paper.
Or you should not take a course, as you already know the
conclusion you would learn from an epidemiology class without taking
it: "I am sure that, if I were to take the course the authors suggest,
I would learn that researchers never over-interpret epidemiological or
observational data only to later find their conclusions don't hold in
controlled settings. Ever. Ever. Ever. ". May I congratulate you on
your self confidence? I wish I would have it! Or you will be offended
again? I think if you are so sarcastic you might be a little bit more
opened
for getting little sarcasm back on you...
Sorry for suggesting you a NEJM comment. It seems you have a strong
aversion for giving opinion outside of your blog. And that's OK.
Everyone has its own preferences. But this whole current post is
a bit kind of a manipulation. "Dr. Isis defends the blogsphere" Who is
against the blogs? Against whom you defend it? We wrote quite clearly
that a letter is "a" and not the "only" normal way. Blogs could be
normal, too. It is just that the tone of your original post is simply
not normal by my (our) standards.
And now about the research question: "you did not examine sleep as a
risk factor in your study" We suggested for you to read those papers
we cited on DST
changes. They clearly indicate that clock shifts disrupt
chronobiological rhythms, influence sleep duration and quality and the
effect lasts for several days after the DST change and the effect can
be quite severe in some individuals. There is a bunch of data on the
adverse cardiovascular effects of these. We wrote about this as the
most
plausible explanation we can offer so far. This does not preclude many
other feasible explanations. As this was the very first study on DST
transitions and AMI of course anything is necessarily
speculative, this should be obvious to anyone skillful in reading an
epidemiological paper when the author's discuss a very new finding. I
assure you it was obvious for the vast majority of people who know how
to evaluate an epidemiological study. If it was not obvious for you,
you could have asked your colleagues around you who are more into
this field etc. Instead you wrote these (among others):
- "shame"
- "crappy interpretation"
- "She only wishes they would have read this article first:"
- "And, she must have been too busy pouring herself a cocktail or
staring at her hotness in the mirror to notice their data showing that
sleep deprivation was highest in women and people under 65."
-"Now, this sounds more like the unabashed speculation it is clearly
meant to be, but I am still disappointed at the attempt to string
together logic in order to apply these data."
- "with a simple literature review the authors could..."
- "Dr. Isis wonders how these jokesters were not familiar with Steven
Sheas's work"
- "Perhaps we should throw a supraphysiologic amount of Vitamin C at
these Swedes and see what happens"
You really think that a careful (although sarcastic)
questioning the background of an anonymous blogger is more offensive
than these above to people with real identities?
About the Teddy bear in the toilet you wrote: "Dr. Isis writes a
satirical blog in which she addresses the roles women scientists play
at home and in academia and discusses topics she finds scientifically
interesting. And she intersperses her posts with patently absurd
pictures. " May I remind you what was written under the toilet
picture? "Figure 2: Janszky and Ljung interpret their data." For me,
this simply does not add up together with your explanation above.
Is my English so poor? Or am I so old fashioned? It would be really
pity, I am just 35...
Yes, if the media asks me: So what do you think what is the
explanation? I am telling them what I think as the the most plausible
explanation, and in the second sentence I am telling them that it is
the very first study, needs confirmation and further evaluation. The
second sentence does not appear always in the mass media coverages,
but that is not my (or our) mistake. When I had a possibility to
galley proofing the media coverage I react. But that is a rare
possibility and journalists do not like too careful statements because
those are not helping their publicity (previous experience...). Should
I
avoid journalists then?
Me and my colleague received a LOT of mails all over the world from
lay persons and experts alike. If anyone from this blog wants to
discuss our findings with us you are all very welcome to write us
personally.
I can assure you we are really opened. My email:
imre.janszky@ki.se
We answered every question so far or plan to do it in the very near
future.
But as far as this blog concerns I do not wish to write here again. I
honestly tried to get a real criticism but based on the experience so
far I simply do not see the slightest possibility that a conversation
with you, Dr. Isis, leads our research any further.
I wish you a good luck with your blog. Keep on criticizing colleagues
but at the same time you do not get very offended if people answer and
use a -remotely-similar style. Do not forget that whom you critize are
real people! With real names and real jobs, families, colleagues,
reputation etc. And please do not compare us with politicians, we are
your colleagues, fellow researchers.
Best regards,
Imre
...
"Dr. Isis writes a satirical blog in which she addresses the roles women scientists play at home and in academia and discusses topics she finds scientifically interesting. And she intersperses her posts with patently absurd pictures."
I wanna go on record as coming here for the "patently absurd pictures" only. Especially for the shoe ones...
I mean, just for the record.
...tom...
I gotta say, this is fascinating. I don't think I've ever bagged any first authors. If they really feel that blogging is a less appropriate venue, or that NEJM is a more legitimate venue, WTF are they doing here?
Obviously, you've struck a nerve. If your criticisms were of the "I don't believe you because you perpetuate the dominant paradigm blah blah blah" type, I don't think they would bother with you. The fact that they are perhaps indicates that the authors buy your criticisms at least a bit.
Yes, if the media asks me: So what do you think what is the
explanation? I am telling them what I think as the the most plausible
explanation, and in the second sentence I am telling them that it is the very first study, needs confirmation and further evaluation. The second sentence does not appear always in the mass media coverages, but that is not my (or our) mistake.
And I think this is exactly the reason why papers need to be discussed on blogs or other media readily available to the general public. Letters to NEJM pretty much never make it into the mainstream media, and even if they did, it seems that they rarely publish more than one or two letters in response anyway. The only way to have something resembling a conversation about a paper is to post about it on a blog with comments or a forum.
And since anyone can have a blog, you can chose which discussions to participate in. For example Coturnix at Blog Around the Clock comes to pretty much the same conclusion as Dr. Isis, but says so with pretty graphs and less snark.
To reply to Dr. Isis' comment: "PhysicsChick, I am intrigued by the idea that the audience of the blog determines whether it is appropriate to openly discuss scientific finding. If I never blogged about shoes or posted silly pictures, would it become appropriate? What if I wrote a purely scientific-sounding blog?"
No, of course not! I think (IMhumbleO) it is still entirely appropriate to blog this discussion as you have (whewwee... what a discussion it turned into!) alongside hot shoes. My point was merely that the overlap between the audience of your blog and the NEJM (you could envision a venn diagram here, with a little sliver of overlap) might be rather small and that if you felt strongly, then maybe the appropriate action is to discuss in both forums. Then we can have some sort of "coffee-room style" discussion here, and a formal critique is heard by the more pertinent scientific community. The suggestion is valid.
You have to admit too, that most of your readers are quite loyal worshipers and not too many have tried to stand up at all for the authors, who are strangers here.
Oh, and don't stop posting pictures of shoes!
To reply to janszimre's comment: "physics*chick:
"length restrictions are no excuse" If you have no space to cite someone, you simply have no space to cite someone... If the limit is 5 citations than that's it."
True, I don't know what it is like in this field for journal restrictions, restricting the number of citations (rather than the total length alone) seems a bit silly. However, there is always an option: if more space need be devoted to the discussion, it could be published elsewhere. This issue is fresh in my mind as my co-authors and I recently received this as the last remaining complaint on a paper (rejected on the basis of this alone, no scientific critique), and really, I can't disagree with the referee's sentiment (though we disagree in that we felt the necessary discussion was there). Often short papers and letters with length restrictions are high impact and it is always tempting to try to push research into these little boxes, but sometimes it just doesn't fit. This is something for the journals to deal with (how to make long format papers high impact?), but I have to feel like it is a somewhat hallow excuse to say "we had more important things to say, but they wouldn't fit"... there has to be another appropriate journal where they will?
Physics*chick, you are absolutely a peach and I think you have provided excellent commentary here.
I could just pinch you.
If I may for a moment stand up for the authors, and because Dr Isis has referred to me as a "dear friend," I have myself tried to get such a report into the NEJM on a drug-herb interaction and found it incredibly difficult not only to meet the length guidelines but the completely unreasonable five reference limit - one is bound to piss off someone with such restrictions. (btw, our letter was rejected by the NEJM, evidence to the "Abel is a pharma shill" crowd that mainstream medical journals do indeed reject negative reports on herbal medicines.).
What I find incredibly fascinating here is that the authors actually came round and engaged with Dr Isis and her readers. Yes, the dispute over the appropriateness of the teddy bear photo seems a little silly, but new readers may not yet understand the style of our incredibly hot and fine-posteriored hostess.
I'll bet that Bora Zivkovic is wetting his pants right now that such a lively discussion is going on here with our Swedish colleagues in a manner that one would hope for at any of the PLoS journals. I would submit that many who don't read NEJM or care about circadian rhythms or vascular biology have actually become interested in the topic itself and more engaged in the subject matter. So despite the discomfort and snarkiness of the exchanges, this is a win for science.
I also find this an interesting example for the session I will help lead with PalMD at ScienceOnline'09 in RTP, NC, USA, 16-18 Jan 2009. I think that pseudonymity on blogs is largely no different than the anonymous critiques of manuscript reviewers or the semi-anon reviews of study sections (i.e., you know who's on them but you don't know who reviewed your grant.). Granted, the informality wouldn't fly in the so-called formal venue, but this is how the blog world is contributing to real-time banter about relevant sci/med issues. I commend Dr Isis for her honesty and Janszky and Ljung for showing up in person to defend their work.
Remember everyone: a NEJM letter is a prelim report, to be followed either by a more extensive paper or a similar study with a larger sample size.
Not to feed the ego of our dear hostess, but we are witnessing the future of scientific discourse right here.
Abel, if this well-posteriored goddess ever finds herself in the same room with Abel Pharmboy, she's gonna totally kiss him. the future of scientific discourse -- simply, lovely.
And to be the topic of a conversation led my PalMD and Abel Pharmboy? Could there be any greater hotness? I heard once that if your ears are itching, someone's talking about you. I have a feeling that being discussed by Abel and PalMD....
Nevermind. This is a family blog.
I've added my 2 cents to the discussion
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/11/discourse_give_me_hives.php
and I'm happy that this issue has turned me on to isis...er, her blog.
Welcome to the discourse, PalMD. I am glad that you've come to revel in my amazing blog hotness.
It's ok to be turned on by it.
I'm skeptical that it's the "future" per se, but it is a very welcome component of the present, and a long-overdue counterbalance to the limited kinds of voices we've heard in scientific discourse in decades past. Isis, I simply love that your personal life goes toe-to-toe with your professional life on this blog. You juggle babies, toys, and toilets as well as kick-ass scientific credentials. The authors' insinuating that any part of your personality and perspective is abnormal or inappropriate on your own blog is, to my mind, the equivalent of a badly glued cardboard sole on a pleather knockoff pump. Tasteless in the extreme!
It seems to me that the lengthy (for blog comments) and substantive exchanges between the NEJM letter authors and Dr. Isis in these here comments, void the letter authors' initial complaint that a blog is an inappropriate medium for disagreeing with published research.
Their attitude seems kind of weird, too: they don't seem to have much respect for Dr. Isis, but they're annoyed by her blogged critique and suggest she write an NEJM letter because a blog is such an inappropriate medium for discussion, but they keep coming back to explain that she's wrong and irrelevant and a coward and thus an insult to their own honor and correctness.
And by doing so they've gone and got Dr. Isis' Pharyngulized, drawing more attention to the original critique and subsequent exchange than if they had just left it alone.
I'm completely intrigued by the reaction to this whole episode! Science is discussed all over the Internets, whether in journal forums, on blogs, or in the mainstream media. I find it interesting that so many people (authors included) are getting so riled up.
I would find it flattering if someone reviewed my paper on their blog, and I would welcome the opportunity to address criticisms head-on.... as opposed to no dialogue at all. Isn't this the point of research and sharing research via publications?
You send my your paper, Sweet Cheeks, and I'll totall review it.
I would suggest that the widely-bemoaned length and citation limits of the print journals are a splendid illustration of why blog discussion is necessary (if not superior.) Of course, letters are even more constrained and don't even have hyperlinks ...
As for the tone, well, I've had many a free-wheeling exchange over beers in my field that would have died without issue of starvation (or thirst!) in print. They were much less polite than this, and at least as likely to take worthwhile diversions into hotness of various stripes, solids, and prints. All the better.
So what we have here is a not-too-radical evolution of bull session, semi-formal review, and letter comment. With hyperlinks and time for research while cranking up the tempo and lifting length and reply limitations.
How is this not good? For the fussy, maybe someone can quill-pen a summary over several dozen signatures, with alphabet soup, for the NEJM. If anyone remembers to, since it'll all be ancient history [1] by then.
PS: the URL is my taste in hot shoes.
[1] No, not you dear patron Goddess. You're neither ancient [2] nor history [3].
[2] That's my ambition, and I'm ahead of you on that if nothing else.
[3] Mythology, now, that's another matter.
Post a Comment