bsky.app/profile/mkar...

exactly! the construct is formed so that anyone can cherry pick whatever they want (diet cola: not energy dense but has aspartame)-- hence, useless as a scientific concept unless further specified

some of the listed items sound like things that might genuinely be caused by processing which (as such) may reduce health value-- but it never stops shocking how work published in 'prestige' venues is able to confuse these basic issues

It's a genuinely interesting question if such mechanisms exist and how they work in different contexts-- eg the listed energy density has nothing to do with processing, there are many dense non-processed foods (pure fat); likewise, many additives are added specifically bc of their health value

looked up the lancet article-- not surprised to find a construct that's arbitrary, almost entirely unrelated to nutrition but defined as being "branded" & "maximising profits"

--> i'm all in for a critical analysis of the food industry but water is also branded and profitable, not unhealthy!

generally, based on many calculations i've seen over the years, a huge difference between publishers seems to come from ad & promotion costs-- which are surely important when competing in the prestige/visibility game under attention economy

Yes but in this case preprint=article, running the journal round is optional (alas, most of us will keep doing it for a good while indeed -- then again, in-kind costs at PCI are difficult to compare to publishers who don't report donated time)

At PCI the cost is 816€

peercommunityin.org/2025/01/08/2...

Got fed up with that a few years ago and life has been so much better since-- today, there are so many good diamond options that the only thing potentially keeping one in the broken system is severe evaluation pressure

Sometimes it feels science isn't that hard after all, all one needs to do is think hard for 5 seconds

I'm aware of pilots/plans where applicants have an option to submit their plan as stage 1 draft, this makes sense imo (raise awareness etc) but nuance is so important in such changes

Do you know if there's an English version available or coming out?

meanwhile, hoping the funders' own publication portals and diamond venues solve the ACP issue (as some already do to some degree)

We likewise found a steep increase in failed controls (0.1>2.3>12.8>22.7) the more severely ppl replied to a single-item tech problems question-- this could be intentional bad responding too but nonetheless critical to be aware of

i understand it's difficult to run large data collections like this (especially in HBSC) but that's exactly what's wrong today: brute force large datasets with whatever measures & then think later if any of the investment was worth anything

funnily enough, the paper says the scale (IGDS) is one of the "better functioning measurements" and cites our paper-- in our paper we actually found only 1 of 9 symptoms measured in a content valid way 🫠 (also curious how translation across 12 languages took place)

it can be interesting to add multiple items even when they don't signal problems (especially if we take networks seriously) but the 2013 symptom list, sketched in dsm-5 appendix, is way outdated and never worked tbh