I’ve found that people misinterpret percentage decreases as odds ratios unless I include the negative sign. The negative sign following decrease language is at best redundant and at worst actually means what is technically opposite to what I want to convey, but including it appears to make things clearer for folks for whatever reason.
There are some university presses that have started their own journals in response to these issues. It’s a broken system, but no one is stopping anyone from creating new journals. All it takes is to eat away at the margins of for-profit journals by publishing fewer papers in them for them to eventually lose interest in the sector.
Mendelian randomization does not a causal claim justify. It’s almost certainly the case that poverty causes mental illness, but this study’s design does not permit causal inference.
Try eating the same number of calories on a vegan diet. It’s hard. More fiber fills you quicker. The diets can’t equate both satiety and calories. Lower calories on a vegan diet is a feature, not a bug.
Yes, it plays a role. What exactly it’s doing is unclear, and it’s probably more that it’s setting up tau to do the real nasty stuff, but it contributes. We know that from experimental work in nonhuman animal models and converging longitudinal work in humans. See, for example: https://www.cell.com/neuron/pdfExtended/S0896-6273(22)00305-1
That’s just *56. Amyloid has been known for decades to play some role, even though *56’s data was fraudulent (for a lay-friendly discussion, see https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/what-we-do/researchers/news/explaining-amyloid-research-study-controversy). Amyloid is certainly not the only thing at play, but it does play some role.
No? They merely state that their results are consistent with one of Poore and Nemecek’s findings. The methods, article scope, and more differ.
I’m not going to defend the article further. If you all want to believe a website over a scientific publication, feel free.
It’s a Nature article; there’s no better source for information. Not sure where you’re getting the 2/3s idea or meat idea from that article–it does not use such language.
Your graphic uses the same larger type of metric of greenhouse gases as does the Nature article. If you click on the greenhouse gas equivalents bit in the header where the figure came from, it makes that clear:
Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas, but not the only one. To capture all greenhouse gas emissions, researchers express them in “carbon dioxide equivalents” (CO₂eq). This takes all greenhouse gases into account, not just CO₂.
You’re not wrong about meat not comprising two-thirds of any person’s total GHG emissions, and I’ve never suggested otherwise. I just wanted to provide a better source of information than that graphic.
I know how to: .71 * 18 = 12.78 Gt, which is more than double what your graph ascribes to agriculture.
Also, there’s no need to be rude, even if I had been wrong.
That graph is wrong/misleading:
Any NIH-funded research must be made open access one year after its publication date. NIH publishes the accepted manuscript in PubMed at the one-year mark. Unlike NIH, (last I checked) NSF doesn’t strictly require it, but you won’t be getting NSF funding unless you say you’re going to make the resulting papers freely available somehow (e.g., preprints, paying for open access, etc.). Not sure about DOE/DOD/etc. funded-articles.
The majority of federally funded research in the US is made open access. You might not realize it because news outlets typically report on brand-new articles, which haven’t hit the one-year mark for open access yet.
There’s some evidence for the same mechanism of action reducing PFAS:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X24003879
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-025-01165-8
Nothing in the Frontiers is reputable among scientists. It gets linked a lot on Reddit because it’s open access, but scientists tend to view it as essentially the not-actually-peer-reviewed equivalent of a preprint. In the past, if all reviewers recommend rejection at Frontiers, the editor would be forcibly assigned new reviewers by the publishing staff. This would continue until the manuscript would get accepted. Not sure if that’s still the same (I’ve blocked all Frontiers emails), but it’s not correct to call a Frontiers journal a major reputable journal.
ONLYOFFICE (sorry for the caps, poor name) has better docx compatibility than WPS or any other suite. It’s the only thing I’ve found that can do everything in an academic style paper without issue. In addition, its source code is open (unlike WPS) and it has Zotero and Mendeley integrations. Its Zotero integration was better than its Mendeley integration last I checked.
I’m a professor and use ONLYOFFICE as the only word processor on my office computer.
Edit: apparently the Zotero plugin needs to be updated.
ONLYOFFICE (sorry about the caps, poor name choice IMO) has even better docx compatibility, and its source code is open
I completely agree on all points.
I wrote the snippet. I mentioned why I phrased it as such elsewhere in thread:
Lemmy seems to be better than Reddit in this regard, given that I’ve now twice commented the explanation. Perhaps I’ll try without the negative sign in the future.