Introduction to INSPECT-SR Training Workshop May An introductory 2-hour online workshop will introduce participants to the INSPECT-SR tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled...

INSPECT-SR online training workshop, May 15th, 11am.

www.trybooking.com/uk/GDRW

INSPECT-SR Training Workshop April (N America) An introductory 2-hour online workshop will introduce participants to the INSPECT-SR tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled...

Think we have people from every continent registered to attend the next INSPECT-SR training workshop. Join them! Times shown are UK - Thursday 30th April 6pm (see next for May date)

www.trybooking.com/uk/GATM

I don’t know. Risk of causing aggravation I guesz

Reviewer has answered ‘yes’ to ‘did you use AI to write this’ which helps! Generic comments

Responding to an AI peer review is so disheartening.

Offering scientists cash to spot errors in published papers doesn’t work The ERROR project tried enticing reviewers with payments. Now, it’s launching a journal—and promising papers as rewards

The ERROR project recruits independent experts to recheck social sciences papers’ data, statistics, methodology, code; now the project plans to publish the reviews in a new peer-reviewed journal.
science.org/content/arti...
@dalmeet.bsky.social @science.org
#reproducibility

Any suggestions @ianhussey.mmmdata.io ?

Reading what I wrote yesterday, and nodding in approval ‘this guy is great, I completely agree with him’

Day 2

Ah, that’s a bit too simplistic I think. Certainly for clinical trials, prereg is mandatory for any decent journal! There is definitely a lot of room for improvement with other study designs though!

Fair enough. But I suppose if someone did later hide their protocol then that would be disqualifying! If someone does have the timestamped protocol available then I think they have satisfied the requirement for prespecification, and absence of a registration in addition to this isn’t a limitation

[1] In a recent fraud relevant case, by not registering the user had control to make the project private again, and did so (can also delete it entirely).

[2] Forward looking, we are probably going to retire the ability to make things public w/out registering to address [1] and related issues.

Update: after two hours, I am still on reviewer 1, comment 1, and have taken a break to have my first Five Guys of the day.

Not ‘Jack’s!’ A large, collaborative effort

Yeah, but if you post a detailed protocol in advance, rather than use the registration option, then has anything been lost?

Have managed to move almost everything from my calendar today and tomorrow to respond to peer review comments. John Wick soundtracks on loop. I imagine this means I’ll be posting a lot

Very nice INSPECT-SR website containing the guidance and editable template, made by @ianhussey.mmmdata.io

inspect.sr

Struggling to see what the reg achieves that isn’t covered in the timestamped protocol though? Indeed, the protocol has far more detail than your typical reg (in health at least)?

If I post a protocol for a methods project (on OSF say), is anything gained by registering it (in addition?)

Introduction to INSPECT-SR Training Workshop May An introductory 2-hour online workshop will introduce participants to the INSPECT-SR tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled...

Upcoming online training workshop date 2 (free) - times shown are UK: www.trybooking.com/uk/GDRW

INSPECT-SR Training Workshop April (N America) An introductory 2-hour online workshop will introduce participants to the INSPECT-SR tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled...

Upcoming online training workshop 1 (free) - times shown are UK: www.trybooking.com/uk/GATM

Recording of the recent INSPECT-SR Cochrane webinar here (requires Cochrane login): www.cochrane.org/events/inspe...

Going to try to cut down to two peer reviews a month. Wish me luck!

9am this morning (UK-time). Introducing INSPECT-SR: a tool for assessing trustworthiness of RCTs: www.cochrane.org/events/inspe...

Okay - INveStigating ProblEmatic ComparaTive Non-Randomised Studies (INSPECT-NRS) works ('works')... don't @ me

Shout out to all the peer reviewers out there insisting we add p-values to Table 1 to check for confounding in an RCT. You are so bad at your job, and will never know it. You think you are great. It must be great to be you.

Great discussion with journal editors as we start to develop INSPECT-JR (a version of INSPECT-SR for the editorial assessment context). Very different to the systematic review context.

bsky.app/profile/stat...

If a pharma company is throwing money at you to say "target trial emulation is great", maybe stop and ask why that is for a second

Is it fine if we call it ‘INSPECT-NRS’ (Non-Randomised Studies) even though it doesn’t really make sense (CT = clinical or controlled trials)