The #suicide #risk #prediction conundrum.
(Bonus: the pointed, sophisticated way with which older papers delivered negative conclusions/bad news vs the hype and drama today. “The conclusion is inescapable” is will go in my next paper.)

“Digital genocide”

www.bmj.com/content/388/...

Hold my beer, #zeroinbox rookies. #zerohandlingeditorlist.
Please don't ask me for how many I (also) acted as reviewer, for how many I pulled personal favors, for how many I used emotional black...ah pressure, for how many I invited more than 20 reviewers, for how many I wrote back after a refusal

jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...

I am pretty sure this is not adequate even for a narrative review. Most of them would not dream to write in this unsubstantiated way in a manuscript. Not to mention the incomplete engagement with Fanelli (2009), which also gives estimates of % scientists other colleagues are faking data.

Can the method at least be understood if not reproduced? This is not an adequate method descriptions by any standards. Which were the relevant citation strains? Searched when? How? Where? Yes, content experts are often contacted *AFTER* the eligible studies were identified with a reproducible method

Paper teaser. Still looking over my shoulder for the other senior authors (there aren’t any), still surreal to have a paper produced entirely by my group, funded through my grant, still surreal to re-read my grant proposal and (still) like it. But interim grant reporting should be abolished)

Thanks! What confused me was this

Please add yourselves to the irreverent meta-research starter pack