I read comic books. You can call them graphic novels if you want to feel smarter about reading them. But whatever you call them, I read ‘em (like just about everything else: I read.)
But it’s not often that a transportation-related comic book shows up. My Not Small Diary #16 is all transport-related stories.
A geegaw post, I know, but hey. It’s not everyday that two interests intersect!
I got my copies from the wonderful Atomic Books.
You know those times when you think you are the crazy one, and then suddenly you find out you’re not?
So for some time, I’ve been reading public health and medical journals and rolling my eyes at what is getting published, while my senior faculty lecture me on quality of research and impact factors. Well, these medical journals have huge impact factors, and they routinely publish terrible policy research. My attitude has been–hell, I can produce bad policy research as well as these people.
Yesterday, one of my wonderful PhD students directed me to this brilliant blog post from aid watch: shaky research to solid headlines via medical journals:
We could go on and on with examples. The British Medical Journal published a study of mortality of age cohorts in five year bands for both men and women from birth to age 95 for 126 countries—an improbably detailed dataset. (The article was searching through all the age groups to see if any group’s mortality was related to income inequality.). Malaria Journal published a study of nationwide decreases in malaria deaths in Rwanda and Ethiopia, except that the study itself admitted that its methods were not reliable to measure nationwide decreases (a small caveat left out later when Bill and Melinda Gates cited the study as progress of their malaria efforts).
The Lancet published a study that tested an “Intervention with Microfinance for AIDS and Gender Equity (IMAGE)” in order “to assess a structural intervention that combined a microfinance programme with a gender and HIV training curriculum.” The conclusion: “This study provides encouraging evidence that a combined microfinance and training intervention can have health and social benefits.” This was a low bar for “encouraging:” only 3 out of the 31 statistical tests run in the paper demonstrate any effects – when 1 out of every 20 independent tests of this kind show an effect by pure chance. (The Lancet was also the culprit in a couple of the links in the first paragraph.) Economics journals are hardly foolproof, but it’s hard to imagine research like this getting published in them.
Go read the whole post–it’s worth it for the clever graphic.
I got addicted to reading the blog last night, so I’m signing up for the feed. Really good stuff.