Beer. Head and neck trauma. They kind of go together. I could tell you some stories from the ER. Too many, in fact. Most years, Oktoberfest attracts around 390,000 people per day in Munich, Germany. The official event lasts over two weeks and takes place at a specific place called
I agree with your read here, this seems unlikely to benefit, and more likely to increase total CT scans and radiation exposures. On the other hand, perhaps a mobile colonoscopy suite for anyone having gastrointestinal distress would be cost-effective and profitable.
Boy, does this sound familiar! As a former journal editor (albeit not in a life-critical field), I'm constantly amazed at the peer-reviewed articles with glaring oversights that appear in "my" journal (post-me) and many others. I fear too often, "review" means a quick skim, finding the general idea interesting, and the author(s) reasonably credentialed - seldom a detailed scrutiny. I don't know what can be done about it, beyond continuing to expose such examples and thus prodding editors to themselves be more aware. (As a student in Munich in 1963, I took part in Oktoberfest - an absolutely amazing experience! I drank one stein and got out as quickly as I could - I never did well with crowds or drunks.)
You make a great point when you write: “the decision editors at major journals are just like the rest of us. “Ooh, they brought a CT scanner to Oktoberfest? Cool!””
How do you think we can move all journals (not just the ‘top tier’ ones that attract the highest volumes of submissions) towards selecting articles based on relevance and impact instead of a heavy bias towards novelty?
I’d love to see this study done in earnest, at least attempting to account for these kinds of factors. It’d be really interesting to start collecting useful data on the benefits and drawbacks of bringing this type of medical service into the field. Someday.
I agree with your read here, this seems unlikely to benefit, and more likely to increase total CT scans and radiation exposures. On the other hand, perhaps a mobile colonoscopy suite for anyone having gastrointestinal distress would be cost-effective and profitable.
😜
Nobel Prize committee will be contacting you shortly! lol
Boy, does this sound familiar! As a former journal editor (albeit not in a life-critical field), I'm constantly amazed at the peer-reviewed articles with glaring oversights that appear in "my" journal (post-me) and many others. I fear too often, "review" means a quick skim, finding the general idea interesting, and the author(s) reasonably credentialed - seldom a detailed scrutiny. I don't know what can be done about it, beyond continuing to expose such examples and thus prodding editors to themselves be more aware. (As a student in Munich in 1963, I took part in Oktoberfest - an absolutely amazing experience! I drank one stein and got out as quickly as I could - I never did well with crowds or drunks.)
Yeah peer review should be a paid activity!
I imagine Oktoberfest back then was slightly smaller and thus more enjoyable? I get a little overwhelmed in crowds myself.
You make many excellent points and highlight the challenges in answering these questions and interpreting data.
I believe the “… top medical journal in the world” comment is up for debate. Thank you for the time and effort you spend on many vital issues.
haha well, I think by impact factor--whatever that means! But you make a fair point :)
You make a great point when you write: “the decision editors at major journals are just like the rest of us. “Ooh, they brought a CT scanner to Oktoberfest? Cool!””
How do you think we can move all journals (not just the ‘top tier’ ones that attract the highest volumes of submissions) towards selecting articles based on relevance and impact instead of a heavy bias towards novelty?
I’d love to see this study done in earnest, at least attempting to account for these kinds of factors. It’d be really interesting to start collecting useful data on the benefits and drawbacks of bringing this type of medical service into the field. Someday.