Read on Twitter
This thread hits home, as I have noticed these papers and felt bad for the very junior first author. It's made me think of some steps that should get folded into research projects... https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1295108883938082816
1. Do we have diversity of background and POV on this team?
2. Has our lit search been comprehensive and raised some notions that challenge this project?
3. What are the range of valid criticisms that could be lobbed against this hypothesis and framing?
2. Has our lit search been comprehensive and raised some notions that challenge this project?
3. What are the range of valid criticisms that could be lobbed against this hypothesis and framing?
4. Is there psychological safety on this team? How are opposing views encouraged? Are they batted down immediately, or treated with respect and thoughtfulness?
5. Is there space for people to have frank discussions independent of the PI?
5. Is there space for people to have frank discussions independent of the PI?
6. Have we had a conversation about post-publication critique? Have we had a conversation about being prepared to explain and clarify, but also having an open mind and humility about valid critique?
7. Does the PI themselves model continuous learning and humility, or are they all-knowing and always right?
8. Does the science capture current models of thought, or is it regressive and likely to come across as dated? How old are your citations?
8. Does the science capture current models of thought, or is it regressive and likely to come across as dated? How old are your citations?
