Ioana A. Cristea

A case then went public in Rome where a new mum after I think 36 hours of no sleep, a long labor slept with her newborn and suffocated him. Yes, guidelines for safe sleep were not followed, but 36 hours of being awake and labor is more than extreme stress. Yet this person’s sleep was not a priority

When i was in the hospital with my 2nd, all women in my room disregarded the rules and slept with our babies. This is dangerous, against the guidelines, the personnel ofc knew, they saw us. What was more important to them than our sleep and safe sleep was non stop baby room-sharing.

I agree with everything you say. And also think men should speak as well. Extreme sleep deprivation, which we know a lot about, is somehow in a different realm when it comes to mothers. But the consequences are the same because, though it shocks many in the parenting establishment, we are still ppl

4. Acknowledge that never will attachment bonds be built simply by stressing relentlessly how women should and should ‘connect’, ‘hold’, ‘be present’. Everyone knows. Noone has doubts. Would you tell this to soldiers in war? To a man in an extreme situation? You would not.

3. Sanction and explicitly discourage the ‘well-meaning’ prescriptive advice with no evidence whatsoever from healthcare providers cum parenting gurus about what women should or should not do while breastfeeding, e.g. how using your phone is bad.

2. Start normalizing through guidelines that trade-offs to ensure basic mother well-being are normal. Not every sacrifice is acceptable nor should it be encouraged or even normalized, so as breastfeed, hold or care the baby most of the time and so on.

Indeed. Respectful care also means 1. Treating mother well-being as a priority, in general and especially in the immediate postpartum. Stop normalizing extreme sleep deprivation. Treat mother sleep as a top priority.

Between classical ballet and fencing, my daughter is doing a great job of fulfilling *both* her parents’ thwarted childhood obsessions. Now what to project on the other one?
(Twitter would not have disappointed at this one)

The doomsday messages always forgets about Occam’s razor: i am sure organized papermill activity is a growing trend, but there is also so much sloppiness, carelessness and general incompetence. Editors, reviewers and authors.

I get what you mean and I also have some examples in my field fresh in my mind, including one high IF journal that recently has a higher than usual weirdish papers. Maybe it is a papermill ring, though they are not that glaringly bad. Often though it’s just a lot of bad submissions & sloppy editors

Of course I don’t have a rule but some of these journals are clearly predatory, super shady websites, stuff like indexed in Google, i saw one where you paid to retract. I agree this is a problem but how big the impact or even prevalence I would argue is not clear.

I know my field very well and absolutely do not think I could or should be labeled naive. And yes, even this paper proves for example deindexing for example works a bit. In my case, i can absolutely tell a journal or paper looks shady.

If I had a nickel for all the times I have said this myself, usually met with the blank ‘but they are cited’ (also in shit journals).
I like this paper and I think it’s important but the doom hype has taken a life of its own. And ofc has its own industry.

Honestly, this paper really did not need all this spin. The methodology itself is sufficient to consider it a major research study, maybe the first systematic and rigorous foray in this growing fraud problem.

Noone really takes the modeling of the growth rate at face value, right? This is very basic statistical stuff, right? You cannot really extrapolate and compare trends from such widely different base rates. And some of the solutions proposed in the NY Times piece? Ban on submissions?

Very much along my own thoughts. I think this is a great paper, gargantuan effort, rigorous, elegant methodology. I also love @carlzimmer.com s article. Why then we need this doomsday spin? Science will self-destroy? It’s 30k papers (btw not all clearly papermills) and a ring of 40-50 editors.

I was fascinated by his studies in undergrad and my first choice would have been developmental psych also because of the ToM literature, so I really don’t want to know he QRP-ed his way into this.

My youngest, ever since she could say no (very early on!), removes kisses and throws them away, then gets sad and looks for them on the floor. Once she washed her arm to remove a kiss. Yes, I need psychological support.

Congratulations!!

Is the panel fair? Evaluating panel compositions through network analysis. The case of research assessments in Italy - Scientometrics Research evaluation is usually governed by panels of peers. Procedural fairness refers to the principles that ensures decisions are made through a fair and transparent process. It requires that the co...

The ‘small’ confound of the system also having a core nepostic component, to put it mildly: link.springer.com/article/10.1...

I am trying really hard to abstain the more ‘psychological’ explanations but I will say one thing that I have also noticed since I am in our IRB for psychology. Ppl are very reluctant to have methods criticized, and conversely to criticize others’ methods. So a lot of subpar research is produced

Absolutely, quartiles combined with N publications maintain this system and tbf a lot of people are ok with it, hence defend MDPI. N<10 (even 15) basically no chance for the most basic entry level assist prof position, even if these are top (by whatever standard) publications. Next, how many in Q1/2

For Padova which is a large university with good open access arrangements (bmj, bmc etc) I think affordable APCs are a bad excuse but here we are

Same. Most of my colleagues reason in quartiles. Luckily quartiles can be both by impact factor or article influence score, which is how some older open-access journals still make the cut for submissions. The other factor is fast, no fuss peer-review and of course affordable APC.

‘Stay with me, Sheila. It’s Prof Godfrey. You’ve lost a lot of blood, but the ambulance is on its way. Before it gets here, though, we need you to just come and change the toner cartridge in the photocopier for us. Sheila? Oh ffs...Has anyone got smelling salts?

Spain wants to change how it evaluates scientists—and end the ‘dictatorship of papers’ Officials aim to use wider range of research outputs to assess researchers at public universities

Also Spain: www.science.org/content/arti...
Anecdotally, I was in a P&T commission for a Catalan university this year and the focus on publications, citations, IF was very clear in the CVs (eg, IFs copied to the 3rd decimal). Candidates did have to present other things too, which were weighted.

Journal of Affective Disorders really falsifies my theory that Elsevier has better clinical psychology and psychiatry journals than other publishers.

In fact I would bet on average at full
professor position in the UK or Netherlands vs Italy the number of publications is much larger, and/or they are high-impact (by any measure you want, just not the JIF quartiles :)))
Then again at entry level positions we do have people with 25+ publications

To these we add the big confounds. Baseline publication rates, by any metric I think even quantity, are very different in Italy, Spain versus UK, Netherlands. Same for successfully winning EC grants, restricting to the ERC for simplicity. So comparisons are intrinsically biased.

report UnimiBox - a safe home for all your data

There are the surveys from the University of Milano, they do stop in 2023 but the data is so clear. MDPI guarantees publication literally (and I won’t even go into the anecdotes)

unimibox.unimi.it/index.php/s/...
I think this is the most important thing for many.