Springer-Nature statement

“Whilst the details of peer review are confidential, we can confirm that the article underwent two rounds of review from two independent peer reviewers, supporting an accept decision.”

How am I now expected to believe that two people looked at the paper twice and DGAF?

MEAL*, not email. I should probably take a break 🤣

Good question. Could it be to do with the outcome? Chopping veg + stirring onions both lead to a prepared email. Commenting on a paper and answering emails, to me, have different purposes/outcomes.

And all fall under “living”. So really, we are all just monotasking at a single task ;)

Fair!

Isn’t the first one just a single task - cooking?

There's no methods development that the observational medical literature can't misuse. Its TTE now, but you look back at when propensity scores were fashionable and see the same thing.

Here’s an example of one we did where working through the process made it clear that the data simply weren’t sufficient to answer the question of interest:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...

I don’t think everyone has grasped that TTEs are meant for when you *can’t* conduct an RCT, not for when you *don’t want to*

How do we incentivise people to publish fewer papers?

We need to live in a world where saying 'I have published over 500 papers' is widely understood as a red flag, not as something to brag about.

Thanks for sharing this!