Bada Yang
LightNews LightNews
yangbd.bsky.social
Bada Yang
@yangbd.bsky.social
35 followers 68 following 3 posts
Systematic review methods. Comparative test evaluation. Sources of bias in comparative accuracy studies. Assist prof @amsterdamumc.bsky.social
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Bada Yang
colbyvorland.bsky.social
I launched version 3.0 of my browser extension "Lazy Scholar", a free in-browser research assistant. It opens automatically when you load an academic article.

See: lazyscholar.org/2026/01/10/l...
January 10, 2026 at 3:07 PM
Reposted by Bada Yang
deevybee.bsky.social
How long should it take to retract a paper with incontrovertible signs of data fabrication? Sleuths think 2 months is too long, particularly when clinical risks are involved. deevybee.blogspot.com/2026/01/an-o...
#retraction #stemcells #cardiology
@erictopol.bsky.social
An Open Letter to the BMJ Editorial Board
to: Editor in chief, Kamran Abbasi , [email protected]      Executive editor, Theodora Bloom , [email protected]      Head of research, Elizab...
deevybee.blogspot.com
January 5, 2026 at 9:38 AM
Reposted by Bada Yang
monicamedhist.bsky.social
This report in Nature on the costs of competing for & administering scientific grants is shocking: "In other words, European taxpayers will have spent more on the funding process than on the funding itself, and the scientific ecosystem has been drained." www.nature.com/articles/d41... 🧪
Point of no returns: researchers are crossing a threshold in the fight for funding
With so little money to go round, the costs of competing for grants can exceed what the grants are worth. When that happens, nobody wins.
www.nature.com
December 19, 2025 at 6:46 PM
Reposted by Bada Yang
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Bada Yang
dingdingpeng.the100.ci
Obligatory blog post:
www.the100.ci/2017/03/14/t...

Elwert & Winship (2014) if you crave something more serious: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
That one weird third variable problem nobody ever mentions: Conditioning on a collider
Scroll to the very end of this post for an addendum.<fn>If you only see footnotes, you have scrolled too far.</fn> Reading skills of children correlate with their shoe size. Number of storks in an ar...
www.the100.ci
December 20, 2025 at 5:14 PM
Reposted by Bada Yang
michelnivard.bsky.social
This smells distinctly like collider bias and/or selection bias and/or regression to the mean... You simply can't select teen prodigies, and world class athletes rom databases, and go run regressions without serious consideration of the selection process!
mikeinouye.bsky.social Mike Inouye @mikeinouye.bsky.social · 28d
"Most top achievers (Nobel laureates and world-class musicians, athletes, chess players) demonstrated lower performance than many peers during their early years. Across the highest adult performance, peak performance is negatively correlated with early performance" www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
Recent discoveries on the acquisition of the highest levels of human performance
Scientists have long debated the origins of exceptional human achievements. This literature review summarizes recent evidence from multiple domains on the acquisition of world-class performance. We re...
www.science.org
December 20, 2025 at 3:48 PM
Reposted by Bada Yang
gidmk.bsky.social
This is a fun one.

Vitamin D for Mongolian schoolchildren. The main study has been cited hundreds of times, it forms a large part of many meta-analyses showing that vitamin D reduces the incidence of respiratory infections.
December 17, 2025 at 4:42 AM
Reposted by Bada Yang
dingdingpeng.the100.ci
You remember that Nature Aging paper about how multilingualism protects against accelerated aging? Well…
December 17, 2025 at 7:15 AM
Reposted by Bada Yang
carlbergstrom.com
Modern-Day Oracles or Bullshit Machines?

Jevin West (@jevinwest.bsky.social) and I have spent the last eight months developing the course on large language models (LLMs) that we think every college freshman needs to take.

thebullshitmachines.com
INTRODUCTION
thebullshitmachines.com
February 4, 2025 at 4:12 PM
Reposted by Bada Yang
jameslarkin13.bsky.social
"I'm not influenced."

"My colleagues are influenced, but I'm not."

"I have ties with all the, companies, so I'm not influenced by any.”

Lisa Bero describing the ways people rationalise their conflicts of interest, opening the #AIMOS2025 conference

@aimosinc.bsky.social
November 18, 2025 at 11:14 PM
Reposted by Bada Yang
dingdingpeng.the100.ci
Confidence interval discussion time! The perfect opportunity to repost this blog post answering the question you haven’t dared to ask: www.the100.ci/2024/12/05/w...
November 19, 2025 at 6:47 AM
Reposted by Bada Yang
elisabethbik.bsky.social
Reformation of science publishing: the Stockholm Declaration
A call to action for universities, academies, science organizations and funders to unite and join this effort.
Bernhard Sabel and Dan Larhammar

royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/...
Reformation of science publishing: the Stockholm Declaration | Royal Society Open Science
Science relies on integrity and trustworthiness. But scientists under career pressure are lured to purchase fake publications from ‘paper mills’ that use AI-generated data, text and image fabrication....
royalsocietypublishing.org
November 9, 2025 at 8:43 PM
Reposted by Bada Yang
deevybee.bsky.social
@bmj.com Please look at PubPeer comments on an article you published last week. pubpeer.com/publications...
I think your research integrity dept shld act swiftly on this one, given clinical significance.
I'm aware of even more evidence of problems so let me know if this is not sufficient.
PubPeer - Prevention of acute myocardial infarction induced heart fail...
There are comments on PubPeer for publication: Prevention of acute myocardial infarction induced heart failure by intracoronary infusion of mesenchymal stem cells: phase 3 randomised clinical trial (P...
pubpeer.com
November 2, 2025 at 3:02 PM
Reposted by Bada Yang
cochranedkcebmo.bsky.social
Tool for Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Trials (TACIT), included in systematic reviews, is now available!

Developed by experts led by Lundh & Hróbjartsson at Cochrane Denmark.

Try the unpublished tool: osf.io/5fzv3/.

Learn more at www.tacit.one and share feedback with @alundh.bsky.social!
Tool for Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Trials (TACIT)
Resources for users of Tool for Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Trials (TACIT) for use in systematic reviews: 1. The TACIT Grid - a template for completing assessments (unpublished 2 September 202...
osf.io
September 18, 2025 at 6:46 AM
Reposted by Bada Yang
rmcelreath.bsky.social
While *ideal* impact factor is well known to be a bad proxy of article quality, it is less well known that *actual* impact factor is negotiated and gamed by journals. You think Nature earned that impact factor? You think that's air you're breathing? (see e.g. journals.plos.org/plosmedicine...)
innovation.bsky.social Misha Teplitskiy (moved to LinkedIn) @innovation.bsky.social · Jun 19
First-ever ranking of journals by impact factor, published by Garfield in Science in 1972.

Science is ranked #77, impact factor 2.99
Nature is #114, impact factor 2.34
June 19, 2025 at 11:35 AM
Reposted by Bada Yang
tomstafford.mastodon.online.ap.brid.gy
Strong #metascience2025
Statisticians are often ignored, don't ignore this poster Adrian Barnett¹, Nicole White¹, Taya A Collyer2 Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. Peninsula Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne PROBLEM: Waste in research Much health and medical research is wasted due to inappropriate study design or analysis Waste could be reduced using expert review from a qualified statistician Ethical review is an ideal stage to get expert input Recently updated Declaration of Helsinki: "research must have a scientifically sound and rigorous design and execution that are likely to [...] avoid research waste." DESIGN: Census of all human research ethics committees in Australia Key question: does the committee have access to a qualified statistician? CONCLUSIONS Large and unjustified variation in practice between ethics committees Many claims of having access to a statistician were not backed up with qualifications Many committees have a narrow view of the value of statisticians Recommendation: Randomised trials and prediction models should not receive ethical approval unless the research team includes
July 1, 2025 at 7:21 AM
Reposted by Bada Yang
alexh.bsky.social
There is no journal of metascience, metascientists have made something better than a journal: metaror.org! ;)
Home - MetaROR
MetaResearch Open Review MetaResearch Open Review MetaResearch Open Review A new platform designed to transform how we review and share metaresearch A new platform designed to transform
metaror.org
July 2, 2025 at 5:11 PM
yangbd.bsky.social
🤔 Which risk-of-bias tool is appropriate for a diagnosis or prognosis study?

Systematic review authors frequently ask this question. There are at least 14 tools, and the choice depends on your research question and aims.

⏩ Find out, in our overview and guidance (open access): tinyurl.com/3ry6n9d2
June 26, 2025 at 11:16 AM
yangbd.bsky.social
❓ In people with HIV, is using two different rapid tests together ('parallel testing') to diagnose TB more accurate than using only one?

An 'incremental' accuracy question: few Cochrane Reviews have yet addressed such questions.

Adult review: shorturl.at/r9CUG
Child review: shorturl.at/nSosK
June 13, 2025 at 9:27 AM