• Revision ID 96577 DRAFT
  • 2019-02-18 11:08:02
  • by Fiona Apps (talk | contribs)
  • Note: Adding lede, tags, and image
 
   
Title Title
Draft: Interview Questions for Ben Goldacre  Draft: Potential Interview Questions for Ben Goldacre
Summary Summary
  What would you like to ask Ben Goldacre?
Highlights Highlights
Content Content
  <em>This draft contains potential questions for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Goldacre">Dr Ben Goldacre</a>. Have something you'd like to ask? Add your question below.</em>
It was a not so sweet Valentine's Day treat for five medical journals as a paper from University of Oxford's <a href="https://ebmdatalab.net/">Evidence-Based Medicine Data Lab</a> was published on Thursday. It was a not so sweet Valentine's Day treat for five medical journals as a paper from University of Oxford's <a href="https://ebmdatalab.net/">Evidence-Based Medicine Data Lab</a> was published on Thursday.
https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-019-3173-2 https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-019-3173-2
The paper offers an exposé of the impotence of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Standards_of_Reporting_Trials">CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials</a>. The first CONSORT rules were <a href="http://www.consort-statement.org/about-consort/history">published in 2001</a> and to date <a href="http://www.consort-statement.org/about-consort/endorsers1">585 journals endorse</a> the 2010 version of the standards. The rules were intended to make trials more scientifically sound, but despite endorsing these rules, more than three-quarters of papers published in the 5 journals over a period of 6 weeks violated these rules. The paper offers an exposé of the impotence of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Standards_of_Reporting_Trials">CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials</a>. The first CONSORT rules were <a href="http://www.consort-statement.org/about-consort/history">published in 2001</a> and to date <a href="http://www.consort-statement.org/about-consort/endorsers1">585 journals endorse</a> the 2010 version of the standards. The rules were intended to make trials more scientifically sound, but despite endorsing these rules, more than three-quarters of papers published in the 5 journals over a period of 6 weeks violated these rules.
Moreover, when the researchers sent letters to the journals, not all of them were published; and in fact the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_England_Journal_of_Medicine"><em>New England Journal of Medicine</em></a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAMA_(journal)"><em>Journal of the American Medical Association</em></a> declined to publish a single correction letter. Moreover, when the researchers sent letters to the journals, not all of them were published; and in fact the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_England_Journal_of_Medicine"><em>New England Journal of Medicine</em></a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAMA_(journal)"><em>Journal of the American Medical Association</em></a> declined to publish a single correction letter.
<h2>Interview Questions</h2>  <h2>Potential Interview Questions</h2>
  <ul>
You started the EMBDataLab in 2015 at university of Oxford; what would you say is your lab’s greatest accomplishment to date?   <li>You started the EMBDataLab in 2015 at university of Oxford; what would you say is your lab’s greatest accomplishment to date?</li>
Would it be fair to characterise your career trajectory as starting out going after low hanging fruit in bad science like charlatans, and now moving up onto the scientists themselves?   <li>Would it be fair to characterise your career trajectory as starting out going after low hanging fruit in bad science like charlatans, and now moving up onto the scientists themselves?</li>
CONSORT stands for Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. Are there situations where these standards might be too restrictive?   <li>CONSORT stands for Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. Are there situations where these standards might be too restrictive?</li>
What’s the process like for getting papers retracted / amended by third parties, i.e. is there a formal process for that (letters) or is it more expected that amendments be done by the authors themselves? Did you notify the authors of the papers themselves at all? (Or would that have ruined the study?)   <li>What’s the process like for getting papers retracted / amended by third parties, i.e. is there a formal process for that (letters) or is it more expected that amendments be done by the authors themselves? Did you notify the authors of the papers themselves at all? (Or would that have ruined the study?)</li>
Why did it take a year and a half for your new comPARE paper to get published?   <li>Why did it take a year and a half for your new comPARE paper to get published?</li>
JAMA and NEJM claimed they didn’t have the space to publish all responses; what’s your response to that?   <li>JAMA and NEJM claimed they didn’t have the space to publish all responses; what’s your response to that?</li>
In the past you’ve complained about academic publication model for medical trials. What do you think should replace it? Who should be responsible for publishing the trials?   <li>In the past you’ve complained about academic publication model for medical trials. What do you think should replace it? Who should be responsible for publishing the trials?</li>
On your website you say a “pre-specified outcome is much less likely to give a false-positive result.” - why is this? Couldn’t it be the case that we should just let algorithms find the relevant correlations anyway?   <li>On your website you say a “pre-specified outcome is much less likely to give a false-positive result.” - why is this? Couldn’t it be the case that we should just let algorithms find the relevant correlations anyway?</li>
The main outcome you examined in this paper was outcome switching, are there any other things that you’d like to measure besides that?   <li>The main outcome you examined in this paper was outcome switching, are there any other things that you’d like to measure besides that?</li>
  </ul>
Categories Categories
Article type Article type
Tags Tags
academic publishing, Open Science  academic publishing, interview, Open Science
Author byline Author byline
Yes Yes
Has hero Has hero
Yes Yes
Hero Alignment Hero Alignment
full full
Hero Image URL Hero Image URL
None None
Featured Image URL Featured Image URL
  https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wikitribune-uploads-master/2019/02/18110714/Ben_Goldacre_TAM_London_2009.jpg
Sources Sources

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us