This is a #@%^&*+ dumb article! :-)
(And full of bovine scatology.)
On a serious note, this is a questionable quality article relying on
questionable (IMHO - incorrect!) research results (conclusions).
I have discussed this article yesterday and today with a friend who
actually works in medical research. We guessed that most likely the
journalist was given an assignment to write something by the deadline
(possibly on the subject), so she googled something and came up with some
superficial conclusions, without much of critical thinking, and got paid
for that mumbo-jumbo.
Besides having some wrong conclusions, what also adds to that impression
is that the journalist does not seem to demonstrate understanding of how
scientific research (publications) works: One of the referenced papers is a
manuscript at the stage when it was submitted for publication. I actually
have doubts if the journalist has actually verified whether it was
published in a peer-reviewed journal. (I checked, it was.) [*]
Now, about the underlying research:
At least the first research article quoted by the journalist is flawed.
(I am reluctant to analyze in detail all of them.) [**]
The biggest problem about it is non-representative choice of the study
participants. They had three studies, but all of them used college
students taking psychology courses:
"A total of 43 participants (30 women) were recruited from introductory
psychology courses at a small liberal arts college <...> Their ages ranged
from 18 to 22 years ..."
"A total of 49 participants (34 women) were recruited from introductory
psychology courses at a small liberal arts college <...>. Their ages
ranged from 18 to 22 years ..."
"Participants were 126 college students aged 18–38 years (86 women <...>)
enrolled in an introductory psychology course at a small liberal arts college."
That is a very narrow category of the study participants, with a higher
than average educational/cultural/social/... level.
I am sure if they took people from other socio-demographic groups,
especially from the lower social levels, they would've seen quite
different results.
To summarize, the study reported is not necessarily representative for the
entire society. And the authors fail to acknowledge that fact.
(If I were the referee, I would've pointed this out, and would not have
recommended this article for publication unless a clear explicit statement
about that serious limitation is made. - I've done similar recommendations
on multiple occasions - in my field.)
This is a good example of how a [wrong] message from unscrupulous
scientists can be amplified by low-quality journalists. This type of
situations undermine the role of science in our society (leading to a
wide-spread skepticism toward the science in the society).
My apology for being a party pooper... :-)
=================
[*]
Let me clarify this point for those who might not be familiar with
how scientific publications work. The author(s) submits a manuscript to
the editor for publication. The editor takes a look - to determine who
would be good reviewers, and sends it to those for review. Based on
the reviewers' comments and recommendations, the editor makes a decision:
to publish, to reject, or to give an opportunity to make improvements, in
which case, the article can go through an additional, similar, round of
review.
I've refereed many manuscripts. A significant portion of those were not
suitable for publication without significant revision. Some of the
manuscripts should have never been published (and usually they weren't).
So, the bottom line is that a peer review is an important tool to weed out
improper articles. So if an article hasn't passed it, - its results and
conclusions might not be reliable.
However, it is important to recognize that the peer-review is not a
guarantee. Moreover, there are peer-reviewed publications that are
wrong. Some of those should not have passed through the peer-review,
others were found to be wrong by the subsequent studies stimulated by
them. The latter is a normal scientific discovery process.)
[**] I am not claiming all conclusions are wrong, - but even some of them
being wrong make the entire article wrong.
Cheers,
Igor
ann sanfedele Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:41:36 -0800 wrote:
great article - works for me regularly
ann
On 1/27/2021 10:03 AM, Bill wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/health/swearing-benefits-wellness/index.html
It definitely makes me feel better....
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.