Thank you, James, for your apt observations especially: “because I realized that even smart, trained scientists and clinicians often lack the time, context, or tools to critically evaluate evidence that’s already been peer-reviewed. If those formally trained to do so don’t have the bandwidth to critically appraise research, how is the general public going to separate reality from sensationalism?”
I appreciate your willingness to share your skills create this much needed conversation.
Thanks so much! This is a huge issue - the reason a peer-reviewed paper is so lengthy is because there's a lot to discuss. Often, all of these details are overlooked, and people just read the abstracts, without understanding all of the nuances in the methods and results.
So, that is one of my goals of my newsletter - to really get into the nuance behind the evidence. This particular post is just the first example of that - more to come!
Thank you, James, for your apt observations especially: “because I realized that even smart, trained scientists and clinicians often lack the time, context, or tools to critically evaluate evidence that’s already been peer-reviewed. If those formally trained to do so don’t have the bandwidth to critically appraise research, how is the general public going to separate reality from sensationalism?”
I appreciate your willingness to share your skills create this much needed conversation.
Thanks so much! This is a huge issue - the reason a peer-reviewed paper is so lengthy is because there's a lot to discuss. Often, all of these details are overlooked, and people just read the abstracts, without understanding all of the nuances in the methods and results.
So, that is one of my goals of my newsletter - to really get into the nuance behind the evidence. This particular post is just the first example of that - more to come!
Great! I will be reading and sharing!