Anne Urai. (2020, November 15). All-inclusive authorship on large scientific papers can a be dangerous practice Alert: Potential unpopular opinion Thread 👇1/n [Tweet]. @AnneEUrai. https://twitter.com/AnneEUrai/status/1327934091929464832

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Pennycook, Gordon. ‘How the COVID-19 Crisis Exposes Widespread Climate Change Hypocrisy’. CBC, 22 May 2020. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/opinion-climate-change-should-believe-dont-understand-1.5482416.

Smaldino, Paul E., and Cailin O’Connor. ‘Interdisciplinarity Can Aid the Spread of Better Methods Between Scientific Communities’. MetaArXiv, 5 November 2020. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/cm5v3.

Bristol, U. of. (n.d.). January: COVID-19 vaccine communication handbook | News and features | University of Bristol. University of Bristol. Retrieved 25 February 2021, from http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2021/january/covid-19-vaccine-communication-handbook.html

Thompson, B., Baker, N., & Watson, T. (2020). Coronapod: The big COVID research papers of 2020. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03609-2

Oreskes, N. (2019). Systematicity is necessary but not sufficient: On the problem of facsimile science. Synthese, 196(3), 881–905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1481-1

Ledgerwood, Alison, Sa-kiera Tiarra Jolynn Hudson, Jr Neil Lewis, Keith Maddox, Cynthia Pickett, Jessica Remedios, Sapna Cheryan, et al. ‘The Pandemic as a Portal: Reimagining Psychological Science as Truly Open and Inclusive’. PsyArXiv, 11 January 2021. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gdzue.

Joe. (2021, January 26). Crystal Prison Zone: I tried to report scientific misconduct. How did it go? Crystal Prison Zone. http://crystalprisonzone.blogspot.com/2021/01/i-tried-to-report-scientific-misconduct.html

van der Linden, S. (2021). The Gateway Belief Model (GBM): A review and research agenda for communicating the scientific consensus on climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.01.005

Debunking Handbook 2020 | Center For Climate Change Communication. (n.d.). Retrieved 16 February 2021, from https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/debunking-handbook-2020/

Nuijten, M. B. (2020). Efficient Scientific Self-Correction in Times of Crisis. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9hc8z

Grzegorz. S., Żogała-Siudem. B., Cena. A. Gagolewski. M., (2020).Three dimensions of scientific impact. PNAS. 117 (25) 13896-13900

Understanding science is a process.

Ross, L. (2020). How Intellectual Communities Progress. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/k6yux

Take away: Lower COVID-19 spread occurred after stay-at home orders were issued. Room for debate exists on how restrictive lockdowns should be.

The claim: Mandatory stay-at home orders are "useless" in helping lower the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

The evidence: Two publications showed that lower COVID-19 spread occurred after stay-at home orders were issued (1, 2). Hospitalizations were lower than predicted exponential growth rates after implementation of stay-at home orders (3). Some caveats to consider include that it is impossible to tease apart the effects of the stay-at home orders from other measure implemented simultaneously with stay-at home orders such as increased hygiene measures, social distancing guidelines, and school closures. It is also impossible to conclusively state that the effect is from the stay-at home order and not the natural progression of the disease.

The comparison between Illinois with stay-at home orders and Iowa without stay-at home orders resulted in an estimated 217 additional COVID-19 cases in Iowa over the course of a month (2). This small number raises the question, "are stay-at home orders worth it?" It is important to remember that comparison of Iowa and Illinois is the comparison of two social distancing strategies. Stay-at home orders close everything and then write the exceptions that can remain open. Iowa took the approach of leaving everything open except what the government choose to close (4). Some businesses in Iowa were still closed and many federal guidelines were still followed. A negative control showing disease progression without any mitigation measures does not exist in published literature.

Sources:

1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7246016/

2 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32413112/

3 https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2020/04/07/iowa-equivalent-stay-at-home-order-coronavirus-kim-reynolds/2961810001/

4 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7254451/

The takeaway: Dimeric lipopeptide fusion inhibitor prevented SARS-CoV-2 infection in all six ferrets tested. Much more work is needed before this could be used in humans.

The claim: Treatment of ferrets with a dimeric lipopeptide fusion inhibitor completely prevents SARS-CoV-2 infection in ferrets.

The evidence: Per Figure 3, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in all three animals inoculated with the virus, all six animals treated with a placebo, and none of the animals treated with the dimeric lipopeptide fusion inhibitor (1). Animals treated with dimeric lipopeptide fusion inhibitor did not mount an immune response to SARS-CoV-2 while an immune response was seen in inoculated animals and placebo treated animals (Figure 4).

More research is needed before this treatment can be used in humans. This preliminary study showed that in a small sample of animals which do not typically show COVID symptoms, SARS-CoV-2 infection was blocked by the dimeric lipopeptide fusion inhibitor. This paper describes the first step in a long journey. Before a new treatment is approved for use in humans, Phase I, II and III clinical trials must be completed (2) which includes showing that a treatment does no harm to healthy humans and proving that it works in humans. This work also needs peer-review in a published journal which may occur with time.

Sources:

1) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.04.361154v1.full.pdf

2) https://www.fda.gov/patients/drug-development-process/step-3-clinical-research

Schmid, P., Schwarzer, M., & Betsch, C. (n.d.). Weight-of-Evidence Strategies to Mitigate the Influence of Messages of Science Denialism in Public Discussions. Journal of Cognition, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.125

Open Science Community Tilburg on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved October 28, 2020, from https://twitter.com/OpenTilburg/status/1318518990000607234

Brañas-Garza, P., Jorrat, D., Espín, A. M., & Sánchez, A. (2020). Paid and hypothetical time preferences are the same: Lab, field and online evidence. ArXiv:2010.09262 [Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.09262

Royal Statistical Society on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved October 25, 2020, from https://twitter.com/RoyalStatSoc/status/1317133702183456769

Schiermeier, Q., Else, H., Mega, E. R., Padma, T. V., & Gaind, N. (2020). What it’s really like to do science amid COVID-19. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02815-2

Lawton, G. (n.d.). It is bad science to say covid-19 infections will create herd immunity. New Scientist. Retrieved October 16, 2020, from https://www.newscientist.com/article/2257258-it-is-bad-science-to-say-covid-19-infections-will-create-herd-immunity/

Science as Amateur Software Development. (2020, September 26). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwRdO9_GGhY&feature=youtu.be

Krumsvik, R. J. (2020). Extended Editorial. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 15(03), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2020-03-01

Holcombe, A. (2020, September 30). Conventional journal rankings—Fight them! Medium. https://medium.com/@ceptional/conventional-journal-rankings-fight-them-9c6db600b0dd

Dr Natalie Shenker on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved October 13, 2020, from https://twitter.com/DrNShenker/status/1314475759508107265

ReconfigBehSci on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1314991301344014336

Reynolds, M. (2020, October 7). There is no ‘scientific divide’ over herd immunity. Wired UK. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/great-barrington-declaration-herd-immunity-scientific-divide

Science could learn something from this. Science is too far focused on the idealized positive outcomes that it isn't paying attention to the negative outcomes and using that to better define its outline or overall shape. We need to define a scientific opportunity cost and apply it to the negative side of research to better understand and define what we're searching for.

Of course, how can we define a new scientific method (or amend/extend it) to better take into account negative results--particularly in an age when so many results aren't even reproducible?

Take Away: The new scientific paper confirms earlier modeling work and should not be interpreted as a detailed prediction for future deaths due to the ongoing pandemic.

The Claim: "A scientific review of the science behind lockdown concludes the policy was a MISTAKE & will have caused MORE deaths from Covid-19"

The Evidence: The scientific process involves replication and confirmation of experiments and studies. A new paper replicates and expands on an early modeling study of the COVID-19 pandemic in England (1). Their findings support the earlier results. However, there are limitations to the replication paper, which does not accurately reflect the current state of the pandemic response and does not make detailed predictions for a second wave of infections and deaths.

A recent expert response to the paper further explains (2):

"It needs to be stressed that all the simulations assume that interventions are only in place for 3 months (18th April – 18th July) and then completely relaxed. This gives rise to a strange set of scenarios where a second wave is allowed to progress in an uncontrolled manner."

“It is this that leads to the counter-intuitive headline finding “that school closures would result in more overall covid-19 deaths than no school closures” – actually what the authors find is that a short period of intense lock-down (including the closure of schools) leads to a large second wave if it is allowed to run with no controls. To be fair the authors do highlight this in the paper, but it is not in the reported press release." -Prof Matt Keeling, Professor of Populations and Disease, University of Warwick

Sources:

(1) https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3588

(2) https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-reanalysis-of-model-used-for-imperial-report-9-and-impact-of-school-closures/

Australian research gets billion-dollar boost in sweeping stimulus budget. (2020). Nature. Retrieved October 09, 2020, from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02835-y?utm_source=twt_nnc&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=naturenews

Take away: COVID-19 death rate is worse than seasonal influenza death rate.

The claim: Coronavirus mortality was over estimated as 10X worse than seasonal influenza to congress due to misclassifying influenza infection fatality rate as a case fatality rate.

The evidence: Comparing infection fatality ratio (IFR) and case fatality ratio (CFR) is an apples to oranges comparison (1). Case fatality ratios present higher death percentages than infection fatality ratios. At the same time, it is important to understand that COVID-19 and seasonal influenza CFR and IFR numbers are rough approximations of reality and the potential for errors exist in all calculations.

The seasonal IFR rate of influenza was overstated in this article. The claim that seasonal influenza IFR and COVID-19 IFR are the same is based on seasonal influenza IFR of 0.1%. Per the WHO report, seasonal influenza “is usually well below 0.1%” (2). This statement was translated into “0.1% or lower” and then “the WHO also reported that 0.1% is the IFR of seasonal influenza, not the CFR of seasonal influenza as reported in the NEJM editorial” (3).

The article is questioning whether COVID-19 is worse than seasonal influenza due to confusion with IFR and CFR. The article overstated influenza IFR to arrive at the conclusion that COVID-19 and seasonal influenza death rates are the same.

Comparison of influenza and COVID-19 deaths:

Influenza CFR = 0.1-0.2%

(Based on CDC data # deaths / # symptomatic cases, 4).

COVID-19 CFR = 2.8%

(In the USA as of 10/6/2020. Includes asymptomatic cases and may therefore be an underestimate of true CFR, 5-6)

It is also important to note that COVID-19 disease is ongoing with the potential for some of the 7,461,206 cases to die from COVID-19 later. Only 2,935,142 cases in the US are reported as recovered as of 10/6/2020.

Even with the inclusion of asymptomatic cases in the death rate calculation for COVID-19, deaths/cases is at least 10X higher than the deaths/cases calculation of symptomatic influenza based on CDC data.

Sources:

1 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32234121/

2 https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200306-sitrep-46-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn%3d96b04adf_4

3 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/disaster-medicine-and-public-health-preparedness/article/public-health-lessons-learned-from-biases-in-coronavirus-mortality-overestimation/7ACD87D8FD2237285EB667BB28DCC6E9/core-reader

4 https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html#:~:text=While%20the%20impact%20of%20flu,61%2C000%20deaths%20annually%20since%202010

5 https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/pages/case-counts

6 https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

Cerase, A. (2020). From “good” intuitions to principled practices and beyond: Ethical issues in risk communication. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 508. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP508-2020-104

Carter, J. (2020, September 29). The American Public Still Trusts Scientists, Says a New Pew Survey. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-american-public-still-trusts-scientists-says-a-new-pew-survey/

Kekecs, Z., Szaszi, B., & Aczel, B. (2020). ECO, an expert consensus procedure for developing robust scientific outputs [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9gqru

Thacker, P. D. (2020). A few tiny steps towards transparency: How the Sunshine Act shone light on industry’s influence in medicine. BMJ, 370. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3229

Nagaraj, A., Shears, E., & Vaan, M. de. (2020). Improving data access democratizes and diversifies science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(38), 23490–23498. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001682117

Moreau, D., & Gamble, B. (2020). Conducting a meta-analysis in the age of open science: Tools, tips, and practical recommendations. Psychological Methods, No Pagination Specified-No Pagination Specified. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000351

Jr, N. L. (2020, September 14). Why Coming Up With Effective Interventions To Address COVID-19 Is So Hard. FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-coming-up-with-effective-interventions-to-address-covid-19-is-so-hard/

Spellman, B. A. (2015). A Short (Personal) Future History of Revolution 2.0. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 886–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615609918

JNOLive | Multiplicity of Randomized Clinical Trials for Coronavirus Disease 2019. (2020, July 14). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-MWPqgLUvA&feature=youtu.be

Vlasceanu, M., & Coman, A. (2020). The Impact of Social Norms on Belief Update [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gsem6

Max Primbs on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved September 14, 2020, from https://twitter.com/MaxPrimbs/status/1304516869509066760

Trump officials interfered with CDC reports on Covid-19. (n.d.). POLITICO. Retrieved September 14, 2020, from https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/11/exclusive-trump-officials-interfered-with-cdc-reports-on-covid-19-412809

Rapid Reviews COVID-19. (n.d.). Rapid Reviews COVID-19. Retrieved September 11, 2020, from https://rapidreviewscovid19.mitpress.mit.edu/

r/BehSciMeta - Comment by u/dawnlxh on ”A completely re-imagined approach to peer review and publishing: PRINCIPIA”. (n.d.). Reddit. Retrieved September 10, 2020, from https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciMeta/comments/if03sk/a_completely_reimagined_approach_to_peer_review/g4nnuc5

Hack-a-thons to improve the research culture. (n.d.). Google Docs. Retrieved September 9, 2020, from https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScAlSb9XTdXznvI2GrOzsXgRn_ibRFHrDL5acodMnaUzubs2A/viewform?edit_requested=true&usp=embed_facebook

Science, C. for O. (n.d.). TOP Guidelines. Retrieved September 9, 2020, from https://www.cos.io/our-services/top-guidelines

Postdocs in crisis: Science cannot risk losing the next generation. (2020). Nature, 585(7824), 160–160. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02541-9

Susan Athey, July 22, 2020. (2020, August 2). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqTOPrUxDzM

Kasy, M. (2020). How to run an adaptive field experiment. Retrieved from https://maxkasy.github.io/home/files/slides/adaptive_field_slides_kasy.pdf

Joshua Salomon on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved September 7, 2020, from https://twitter.com/SalomonJA/status/1302767010367983616

Merchants of Doubt. (2020). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merchants_of_Doubt&oldid=950272903

Tea & Talk Podcast. (2020, June 5). The Royal Society of Edinburgh. https://www.rse.org.uk/publication/tea-talk-podcast/

Scientist, N. (n.d.). How to sniff out the good coronavirus studies from the bad. New Scientist. Retrieved July 1, 2020, from https://www.newscientist.com/article/2242835-how-to-sniff-out-the-good-coronavirus-studies-from-the-bad/

aaronpeikert. (2020). Aaronpeikert/reproducible-research [TeX]. https://github.com/aaronpeikert/reproducible-research (Original work published 2019)

Lab to field. (n.d.). Behaviourally Informed Organizations. Retrieved June 21, 2020, from https://www.biorgpartnership.com/lab-to-field

Marshall, M. (n.d.). Scotland could eliminate the coronavirus – if it weren’t for England. New Scientist. Retrieved July 2, 2020, from https://www.newscientist.com/article/2247462-scotland-could-eliminate-the-coronavirus-if-it-werent-for-england/

r/BehSciMeta - Comment by u/VictorVenema on ”Can one distinguish between argument and fact? And, if yes, how?”. (n.d.). Reddit. Retrieved July 10, 2020, from https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciMeta/comments/ho0qr1/can_one_distinguish_between_argument_and_fact_and/fxezalm

r/BehSciMeta—No appeasement of bad faith actors. (n.d.). Reddit. Retrieved June 2, 2020, from https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciMeta/comments/gv0y99/no_appeasement_of_bad_faith_actors/

Clements, J. C. (2020). Don’t be a prig in peer review. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02512-0

Welcome! You are invited to join a meeting: ASAPbio Community Call August 2020. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email about joining the meeting. (n.d.). Zoom Video. Retrieved September 2, 2020, from https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMtc-ysqDIjGNUKrYAoTHYzYeLu9Jd8iP_V

James Evans: The social limits of scientific certainty (Video). (n.d.). Metascience.com. Retrieved September 1, 2020, from https://metascience.com/events/metascience-2019-symposium/james-evans-social-limits-of-scientific-certainty/

r/BehSciResearch—New research project on managing disagreement. (n.d.). Reddit. Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciResearch/comments/hwjm0w/new_research_project_on_managing_disagreement/

van Smeden, M., Lash, T. L., & Groenwold, R. H. H. (2020). Reflection on modern methods: Five myths about measurement error in epidemiological research. International Journal of Epidemiology, 49(1), 338–347. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz251

Welcome to a new ERA of reproducible publishing. (2020, August 24). ELife; eLife Sciences Publications Limited. https://elifesciences.org/labs/dc5acbde/welcome-to-a-new-era-of-reproducible-publishing

Adams, R. C., Sumner, P., Vivian-Griffiths, S., Barrington, A., Williams, A., Boivin, J., Chambers, C. D., & Bott, L. (2017). How readers understand causal and correlational expressions used in news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000100

CRediT - Contributor Roles Taxonomy. (n.d.). CASRAI. Retrieved June 13, 2020, from https://casrai.org/credit/

Fell, M. J., Pagel, L., Chen, C., Goldberg, M. H., Herberz, M., Huebner, G., Sareen, S., & Hahnel, U. J. J. (2020). Validity of energy social research during and after COVID-19: Challenges, considerations, and responses [Preprint]. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/pe6cd

Moreau, D., & Gamble, B. (2020). Conducting a Meta-Analysis in the Age of Open Science: Tools, Tips, and Practical Recommendations [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/t5dwg

Independent SAGE on Twitter: “NEW: Independent SAGE has evaluated the scientific evidence on social distancing & concludes it is not safe to reduce it from 2m to 1m indoors as government proposes https://t.co/GHgJ6SXW7C” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved June 22, 2020, from https://twitter.com/independentsage/status/1274727763786809344

Nature. (2020, April 17). Coronapod: Troubling news. https://play.acast.com/s/nature/coronapod-troublingnews

Chang, D. C., & Stapleton, S. M. (2020). Response: The Proliferation and Misinterpretation of “As Safe As” Statements in Surgical Science: A Call for Professional Discourse to Search for a Solution. Journal of Surgical Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.03.074

Althouse, A. D. (2020). Post Hoc Power: Not Empowering, Just Misleading. Journal of Surgical Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.10.049

Bababekov, Y. J., Hung, Y.-C., Hsu, Y.-T., Udelsman, B. V., Mueller, J. L., Lin, H.-Y., Stapleton, S. M., & Chang, D. C. (2019). Is the Power Threshold of 0.8 Applicable to Surgical Science?—Empowering the Underpowered Study. Journal of Surgical Research, 241, 235–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.03.062

Nelson, N. C., Ichikawa, K., Chung, J., & Malik, M. (2020). Mapping the discursive dimensions of the reproducibility crisis: A mixed methods analysis [Preprint]. MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/sbv3q

Fife, D., Lung, M., Sullivan, N., & Young, C. (2020). When Values Collide: Why Scientists Argue About Open Science and How to Move Forward [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q9d28