#they read all the peer reviewed studies and cite their sources

[curlicuecal]

playing science telephone

Hi folks. Let's play a fun game today called "unravelling bad science communication back to its source."

Journey with me.

Saw a comment going around on a tumblr thread that "sometimes the life expectancy of autism is cited in the 30s"

That number seemed..... strange. The commenter DID go on to say that that was "situational on people being awful and not… anything autism actually does", but you know what? Still a strange number. I feel compelled to fact check.

Quick Google "autism life expectancy" pulls up quite a few websites bandying around the number 39. Which is ~technically~ within the 30s, but already higher than the tumblr factoid would suggest. But, guess what. This number still sounds strange to me.

Most of the websites presenting this factoid present themselves as official autism resources and organizations (for parents, etc), and most of them vaguely wave towards "studies."

Ex: "Above And Beyond Therapy" has a whole article on "Does Autism Affect Life Expectancy" and states:

The link implies that it will take you to the "research studies" being referenced, but it in fact takes you to another random autism resource group called.... Songbird Care?

And on that website we find the factoid again:

Ooh, look. Now they've added the word "some". The average lifespan for SOME autistic people. Which the next group erased from the fact. The message shifts further.

And we have slightly more information about the study! (Which has also shifted from "studies" to a singular "study"). And we have another link!

Wonderfully, this link actually takes us to the actual peer-reviewed 2020 study being discussed. [x]

And here, just by reading the abstract, we find the most important information of all.

This study followed a cohort of adolescent and adult autistic people across a 20 year time period. Within that time period, 6.4% of the cohort died. Within that 6.4%, the average age of death was 39 years.

So this number is VERY MUCH not the average age of death for autistic people, or even the average age of death for the cohort of autistic people in that study. It is the average age of death IF you died young and within the 20 year period of the study (n=26), and also we don't even know the average starting age of participants without digging into earlier papers, except that it was 10 or older. (If you're curious, the researchers in the study suggested reduced self-sufficiency to be among the biggest risk factors for the early mortality group.)

But the number in the study has been removed from it's context, gradually modified and spread around the web, and modified some more, until it is pretty much a nonsense number that everyone is citing from everyone else.

There ARE two other numbers that pop up semi-frequently:

One cites the life expectancy at 58. I will leave finding the context for that number as an exercise for the audience, since none of the places I saw it gave a direct citation for where they were getting it.

And then, probably the best and most relevant number floating around out there (and the least frequently cited) draws from a 2023 study of over 17,000 UK people with an autism diagnosis, across 30 years. [x] This study estimated life expectancies between 70 and 77 years, varying with sex and presence/absence of a learning disability. (As compared to the UK 80-83 average for the population as a whole.)

This is a set of numbers that makes way more sense and is backed by way better data, but isn't quite as snappy a soundbite to pass around the internet. I'm gonna pass it around anyway, because I feel bad about how many scared internet people I stumbled across while doing this search.

People on quora like "I'm autistic, can I live past 38"-- honey, YES. omg.

---

tl;dr, when someone gives you a number out of context, consider that the context is probably important

also, make an amateur fact checker's life easier and CITE YOUR SOURCES

[fatliberation]

I saw a comment on your blog that says 'the way you eat does not cause diabetes'...are you able to expand on that or provide a source I could read? I've been told by doctors that my pre-diabetes was due to weight gain because I get more hungry on my anti psychotics and I'd like to fact check what they've told me! Thank you so much!

Pre-diabetes was rejected as a diagnosis by the World Health Organization (although it is used by the US and UK) - the correct term for the condition is impaired glucose tolerance. Approximately 2% of people with "pre-diabetes" go on to develop diabetes per year. You heard that right - TWO PERCENT. Most diabetics actually skip the pre-diabetic phase.

There are currently no treatments for pre-diabetes besides intentional weight loss. (Hmm, that's convenient, right?) There has yet to be evidence that losing weight prevents progression from pre-diabetes to T2DM beyond a year. Interestingly, drug companies are trying to persuade the medical world to start treating patients earlier and earlier. They are using the term “pre-diabetes” to sell their drugs (including Wegovy, a weight-loss drug). Surgeons are using it to sell weight loss surgery. Everyone’s a winner, right? Not patients. Especially fat patients.

Check out these articles:

Prediabetes: The epidemic that never was, and shouldn’t be

The war on ‘prediabetes' could be a boon for pharma—but is it good medicine?

Also - I love what Dr. Asher Larmie @fatdoctorUK has to say about T2DM and insulin resistance, so here's one of their threads I pulled from Twitter:

1️⃣ You can't prevent insulin resistance. It's coded in your DNA. It may be impacted by your environment. Studies have shown it has nothing to do with your BMI.

2️⃣ The term "pre-diabetes" is a PR stunt. The correct term is impaired glucose tolerance (or impaired fasting glucose) which is sometimes referred to as intermittent hyperglycemia. It does not predict T2DM. It is best ignored and tested for every 3-5yrs.

3️⃣ there is no evidence that losing weight prevents diabetes. That's because you can't reverse insulin resistance. You can possibly postpone it by 2yrs? Furthermore there is evidence that those who are fat at the time of diagnosis fair much better than those who are thin.

4️⃣ Weight loss does not reverse diabetes in the VAST majority of people. Those that do reverse it are usually thinner with recent onset T2DM and a low A1c. Only a tiny minority can sustain that over 2yrs. Weight loss does not improve A1c levels beyond 2 yrs either.

5️⃣ Weight loss in T2DM does not improve macrovascular or microvascular health outcomes beyond 2 years. In fact, weight loss in diabetics is associated with increased mortality and morbidity (although it is not clear why). Weight cycling is known to impacts A1c levels.

6️⃣ Weight GAIN does NOT increase the risk of cardiovascular OR all causes mortality in diabetics. In fact, one might even go so far as to say that it's better to be fat and diabetic than to be thin and diabetic.

Dr. Larmie cites 18 peer reviewed journal articles (most from the last decade) that are included in their webinar on the subject, linked below.

[sophieinwonderland]

Reminder That System Medicalism is a Religion: Exhibit A, @theinfernalcollective

This is pretty typical sysmed rhetoric.

And in typical sysmed fashion, has no sources to back it up whatsoever! As always, sysmeds rely on an argument by assertion. Facts just aren't on their side.

Never have been, never will be.

So they give a couple sources.

First is the DSM which doesn't say trauma is needed in all cases of DID, only that it's associated with trauma. It makes no such claim for OSDD-1 being associated with trauma at all. And on top of that, doesn't even mention the word system. Which is pretty big since most endogenic systems don't have a dissociative disorder and don't claim to.

Basically, it's a nothing source that doesn't back up what they claim it does.

As for Dr Candy Fox...

There's no evidence she actually said this.

And she has yet to respond to the message I sent her website. (Because yes, I did send her a message on her site to see if she actually agreed with this.)

But based on the context, it seems pretty obvious she would have been talking about dissociative identity disorder, not "being a system."

Now, before going any further into this conversation, let's take a step back and remember The Infernal Collective asking the anon to name a single psychiatrist, obviously expecting they wouldn't be able to.

How did THAT go?

Oh right, it's how it always goes when you meet a sysmeds' goalposts!

Did you expect anything different?

"This psychiatrist saying you can be plural without trauma doesn't count because he's talking about transgender people."

"And also the screenshots of his peer-reviewed book that was published by the American Psychiatric Association are posted on a site I don't like."

So when linked to an email from a dissociative expert, someone with 40 years of experience treating dissociative identity disorder, they again retreat to just... not liking the website the image is posted on?

And again, their source for Dr. Candy Fox was just something they allegedly heard in person during evaluationMeanwhile this is an actual email, with one of the foremost DID experts in the world!

Also, for the love of the gods, Transgender Mental Health does NOT say "transgender make plurality." Actually read the thing!!!

But hey, now that I'm done with that particular conversation and got what I need to make my point, I'll confess! All these anons were me!

Reminder, again, their source was "my doctor said it, trust me bro!"

And while I only named a couple doctors over the course of that conversation, I could have dropped so many more!

The fact is, it's not hard to look at a link and read the screenshots therein. Here, I'll even post the pics!

And in case you're thinking that they just trust Dr. Candy Fox's opinion so much and hold her in such high regard...

Nope.

But then...

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU BASING YOUR BELIEFS ON?

Because it's not psychiatry. You can't cite a single doctor anywhere who has said you can't be a system without trauma!

System Medicalism is a Religion!

Sysmeds, like transmeds, do not base their bigotry in science or rationality. They do not follow the opinions of experts.

It's a religion to them! The Church of the Holy Trauma believes that Trauma and only Trauma has the might to bestow plurality upon the few chosen. And their faith is so unshakable because they've been told this by random uneducated nobodies on the internet, and it just feels true.

And because their FAITH in this idea is so strong, no amount of studies will change their mind. No amount of doctors coming forward to support endogenic systems. No amount of literal brain scans will convince them endogenic systems are real. As the saying goes, you can't reason someone outs of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

In the end, sysmeds continue to be an anti-science hate group with a religious devotion to their ideology of hate.

And this whole disaster is just another example of that.

[ciceroprofacto]

wait

someone cited your *tumblr post* and it got published *in a journal*?!

this might have singlehandedly resolved a solid chunk of my imposter syndrom at my job

(this isn't meant as a dig to your academic rigor. just. a tumblr post made it into a journal citation.)

(also i haven't been here in a while so appologies if i'm not understanding the situation correctly)

Undergrad academic journal.

And, they didn't cite it. That's the point.

To be clearer about my point than my original post, I should've said this blog is not a valid academic source. Because- if they were gonna reference that theory, they should've cited it.

By that I mean- if they were going to reference the five words theory from this blog, they needed to put a link to the post and authorship information so that readers could find where that idea was coming from and judge its validity for themselves. Just saying that "historians and individual scholars" think something is not a citation- (not to mention that I am neither of those things in any way that's relevant to the study of history).

If they wanted to make a reference to a theory from a blog in an academic paper, that's perfectly fine. But, all they could definitively say about it is that it exists and show where.

If anything- citing fan theories puts academic attention on new ideas and allows for peer review to happen in a professional setting. But, it needs honest citation. That means openly recognizing when the ideas you're discussing haven't been validated and showing where you found them.

Preferably asking permission before doing so...

I'm not a huge fan of having my theories published because it opens up the writer to a lot of scrutiny on the points they're making. But, if they're framing things responsibly, I won't stop them. I just have to keep emphasizing that a blog isn't a valid source of new information. All a blog can provide for you in your academic studies is help with archiving, organizing, and compiling academic sources in easy to read format- at most, they help put sources together in context that can help you make clearer arguments. That's a lot- that's plenty.

But, that's it.

As someone who's about to finish their first masters, I understand that you're going to discuss non-academic sources in your academic papers sometimes. Just please- do it with intention and transparency if you're gonna do it...

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: JLCederblom

Published: Apr 30, 2024

One of the most basic errors you would expect to be caught in peer-reviewed academic literature is plain data errors. They require no real expertise to catch and tend to be trivial to fix. It’s simply part of regular proof reading that any serious article of any sort should undergo.

So why are papers on transition regret rife with ridiculous errors, such as inventing thousands of people out of thin air? And why do those errors occur in the first place?

Let’s have a look at the latest in a long line of peer-reviewed garbage: “A Systematic Review of Patient Regret After Surgery- A Common Phenomenon in Many Specialties but Rare Within Gender-Affirmation Surgery” by Thornton et al.

This piece self-identifies as a systematic review, which it simply isn’t, but that’s rather technical (and, dare I say, academic) compared to the grievous errors in the paper, and will require some back-and-forth with the journal. Going over all of that in detail will take time and isn’t that interesting — although if the paper does get corrected or retracted, it’ll likely be due to such procedural issues rather than overarching problems.

While many individuals report satisfaction and improved measures of mental health after undergoing gender affirming surgery, there is a small but vocal minority who experience regret after their procedures.⁴ De-transitioning, also known as continued gender transition, has been exhaustively covered in the mainstream and conservative media and is an emerging area of study in gender affirming care.

The paper also has a rather noticeable disdain for the subject matter and a clear agenda with the goal of minimizing transition regret as a niche, “exhaustively covered” issue, championed by a “small” but unnecessarily “vocal” group.

Let’s have a look at the sources the paper cites for the rate of regret.

* * *

First up: Wiepjes et al., 2018.

A study performed in Amsterdam retrospectively examined 6,793 patients who attended a gender identity clinic in Amsterdam from 1972 to 2015 and found 0.6% and 0.3% of transwomen and transmen reported experiencing regret after gender affirming surgery, respectively. The authors noted that reasons for regret could be divided into three categories. True regret was defined as regretting having GAS. Social regret involved losing touch with loved ones or being fired from a job because of GAS. Lastly, some participants reported feeling non-binary and no longer feeling satisfied with their surgical result. Average time to experiencing regret was 130 months (more than 10 years) post-operatively.³⁰

This is simply erroneous. The authors make the claim that Wiepjes et al., 2018, measured reports of “experiencing regret after gender affirming surgery”. This is false, as the study first required hormonal detransition, the cessation of cross-sex hormone treatment and going back on your natal sex hormones, at the same clinic. Every time the authors describe this as only measuring “experienced regret” they are not being truthful.

In addition, the number who were investigated for this rather specific definition of regret was not 6,793 but 2,627. I’m not sure what the exact purpose of putting the number of people who visited the clinic, including those who never transitioned whatsoever, is but it certainly inflates the number.

You might ask yourself how it’s possible that the authors read Wiepjes et al., 2018, but did not manage to understand what was investigated, nor how many people were looked at. The most likely answer, to me at least, is that none of the authors, peer reviewers, or editors, actually read the paper.

* * *

Next up: Bustos et al., 2021. If you need a primer on this, I’ve written about it before.

In 2021, a systematic review and meta-analysis was completed which assessed 27 studies, including a total of 7,928 transgender individuals. One third of the included individuals underwent transmasculine procedures, while the remaining two thirds underwent transfeminine procedures. Of the 7,928 individuals included in the analysis, 1.0% expressed regret. The most common reason for post-operative regret was “difficulty/dissatisfaction in life with the new gender role.” Another common reason was failure of surgery to achieve their aesthetic surgical goals. The authors hypothesized that the rate of regret established by this metanalysis was lower than a previously established rate from 1993 due to increased rigor in the selection process before gender affirming surgery.

Bustos et al., 2021, pulls together all the greatest hits of gender pseudoscience: erroneous data, fraudulent methods, zero peer-review, irresponsibility (or perhaps hostility) from the journal, and more. It’s a paper where the factual error count is in the triple digits to this day.

However, after wrangling the arms of the journal editors a bit, they put out a partial correction (where they actually introduced some new errors as well as fixed a handful). The lowest possible bar you could hold the authors against in this 2024 paper is that they used that 2022 “correction.”

Of course they didn’t.

An inability to even copy and paste numbers is what we’re dealing with here. From the entire chain, authors through editors. It ties into the previous paper as well—if Thornton et al. had read Wiepjes et al., 2018, they would be entirely equipped to see through Bustos et al., which makes the exact same nonsensical mistakes they did.

I would provide an exact number instead of 7,928 here, but it’s not actually possible to do that because one of the included papers reports contradictory numbers, which Bustos et al. didn’t mention or, more likely, even notice. Another provides an estimate rather than exact figures. They also included papers which did not investigate a regret rate in the review, which is just bizarre.

Either way, out of the claimed 7,928 people, at least 3,400 were not investigated for regret in any way. As previously mentioned another 2,627 had a requirement that you had to hormonally detransition in order to count as regretful. Another didn’t measure regret at all, simply legal sex marker reversals. If you go through the papers and add up the number of people who were explicitly asked about regrets (in any way) you get around 1,300. With unknown loss to follow-up, often very short follow-up, and no uniformity to the way they were asked.

Which apparently to Thornton et al., the peer-reviewers, and the journal editors, is enough to conclusively state that we know the rate of transition regret.

* * *

Next up is Narayan et al., 2021, which was a combined survey and systematic review. See if you can spot the sleight of hand.

Another study surveyed all surgeons registered for the 2016 World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the 2017 US Professional Association for Transgender Health. Most respondents practiced in the United States and had surgically treated at least 100 transgender or gender-nonconforming patients. Of the 30% of surgeons that completed the survey, 61% respondents had treated at least one patient who experienced regret or requested reversal of a procedure. Overall, the calculated rate of regret after gender affirming surgery was 0.2%-0.3%. Of the 62 patients that respondents reported had sought reversal surgery, reasons for reversal included surgical complications, continued evolution of their gender identity, rejection or alienation from social support, and difficulty in romantic relationships.⁵

An anonymous survey of WPATH or USPATH conference attendants with 70 percent non-respondents (fairly catastrophic given the population), asking them to estimate the number of patients they’ve surgically transitioned (somewhere between 18,125 and 27,325) and how many patients they’ve “encountered” (meaning what?) who “regretted their gender transition” (open for a wide range of interpretations) is not a very serious approach.

The paper sometimes treats “regret,” “reversal request,” and “detransition” as the same thing, sometimes not. The authors (both Narayan et al. and Thornton et al.) seem very confused about what the respondents were actually talking about. Usually, when you’re confused, the right thing to do is to slow down and work it out. Not to take the decision to treat 62 patients seeking surgical reversal as “the regret rate”—which is absurd, and reveals the authors’ intellectual, or rather emotional, bias towards presenting as low a number as possible.

* * *

Next up is Bruce et al., 2023.

Recently, research from the University of Michigan demonstrated low levels of regret after gender-affirming mastectomy in a cross-sectional study. On average, respondents underwent surgery 3.6 years before the survey. The median Decision Regret Scale score was 0.0. Further, of the 139 respondents, zero requested reversal procedures.³²

The respondents certainly reported low decision regret. Of course, 3.6 year mean follow-up is less than most studies put the average time to regret at, and a 40 percent non-response rate is… an issue. It’s also exclusively following mastectomy, and that this often provides (at least) short term relief from breast-related distress seem highly plausible.

If Thornton et al. was a systematic review rather than a literature review with a (very poor) systematic search, these issues would be explored and Bruce et al. would take its rightful place as low quality evidence for potential short term benefits. Presenting it as evidence of a low regret rate, however, is ridiculous.

On a side note, Bruce et al. also cites erroneous data from Bustos et al., this time regarding follow-up times rather than sample sizes. It truly is the gift that keeps giving in terms of academic misinformation.

* * *

The final thing referenced is the 2022 USTS Early Insight report.

In February 2024, the 2022 US Transgender Survey Early Insight report was published, providing data from 92,329 binary and nonbinary transgender people. This report noted that 97% of respondents who had undergone gender-affirming surgery reported that they were “a lot more satisfied” or “a little more satisfied” with their lives.³³

This was an anonymous online survey recruiting participants via advocacy groups, and described as “a survey for trans people, by trans people.”

When Thornton et al. describe it as “92,329 binary and nonbinary transgender people” they actually get that wrong as well, as the report describes it as “38% nonbinary, 35% transgender women, 25% transgender men, and 2% crossdressers.” This may seem like nitpicking, but it actually describes the inconsistencies of the worldview that Thornton et al. champion.

Other than poking fun at them, there isn’t much more to say here. The Early Insight report doesn’t discuss regret, which is why they didn’t claim it did. Which would make it odd that they put it under the heading “Regret After Gender-Affirming Surgery” if you’re operating under the assumption that Thornton et al. are writing an academic paper, but that’s clearly not the intention.

* * *

Human writing has many purposes. The most obvious is communication, to convey thoughts and ideas to others. But we also do it for fun, or to assist ourselves, to organize our thoughts, all sorts of ways. Academic papers of this sort, however, are supposed to have a single purpose: to inform others.

When people write falsehoods, figuring out why they do so is interesting. It tells us something about them. For example, when Thornton et al. repeat erroneous data about papers, it tells us that they didn’t care. Despite using emotive language about regret, it tells us that they don’t care enough about the reality of regret to even read a six page paper (a very low bar), but they were happy to write a paper about it.

So why did they write this paper, despite not caring about the topic?

Research on regret after gender-affirming surgery poses unique challenges, as patients may fear that their regret could be weaponized against the transgender community. Those who seek to limit access to GAS often use regret as a key element in their arguments and in proposed legislation.

The aim of Thornton et al. appears to be to muddy the waters and push their own narrative, as the errors are not random but rather all go in the same direction. They are concerned with the consequences of regret, not regret itself. They simply aimed to distract people, and to breathe some new life into old misinformation, and they accomplished that.

There’s a steady stream of blatant garbage flowing through journals in this field. It’s not the replication crisis of science at large, or publication bias, and it’s not about large scale matters out of control—although structural vulnerabilities in the publishing process of journals is of course an issue.

In the end it comes down to emotionally driven choices by the individuals involved allowing falsehoods to be printed. The paper is a thinly veiled ideological document masquerading as science, but whether it highlights the complicity or just the illiteracy of the peer-reviewers and editors is yet to be determined.

*This article was originally published on JLCederblom’s blog on Medium.

==

They don't care about protecting people, they only care about protecting the cult. The point is to portray the cult as infallible, that the dogma and the doctrine is never wrong, it's only the members following the doctrine and dogma that are wrong. They don't have enough faith. They were never a true Scotsman. All the usual stuff.

[justanothersyscourse]

It's incredibly frustrating to me that in most conversations with pro/endos, they fail to accurately quote facts that are easily verified.

The DSM III didn't have a distress component - Easily verified as false

The ICD-10 doesn't include any description of MPD - Easily verified as false

Ross said this - Easily verified as... At least slightly misleading as presented

Freud didn't say that - Here's his book, have at it

MPD was in the ICD until 2019 - nope

Normal Dimensions of Multiple Personality Without Amnesia is proof of endogenics - Easily verified as flat out wrong and says no form of multiplicity is real

But the veteran-- Have you read the paper? Do you know what that doctor did? (hah DID)

Where they manage to win debates is in statements that are just unclear enough that it can't be easily verified in a simple, linear way, and where subjectivity comes into play.

Take, for example, the cultural exclusion. The DSM fails to accurately define what this means, and so it can be taken in a very broad, surface level way, or it can be taken to hold much more weight and reverence in its application (and as someone with a professional background in social services, I'm telling you, it's the second one).

As long as a pro/endo continues to point this fact out, it doesn't matter how much research you cite. You could have forty peer reviewed articles to their one (and it's not even an article, it's an interview with a tulpa). You could have access to all those articles and books hidden behind paywalls.

As long as they can find an equally subjective, weakly defined quote, the cycle continues. You present further research--mountains of it, now trying to prove a tangential point. You show instances of the author they quoted making a more definitive statement in another paper.

By the time you've hit this point, no one cares how much research there is or the sheer number of clinicians repeatedly saying the same things across multiple studies and papers.

The path from point A to point B has become distorted and now you're "reaching" to apply things and the original point is lost.

And all it takes is continuing to hold on to obscure statements that could potentially be taken the other way, if you ignore supporting evidence.

It is impossible to prove to them that what you're saying has merit-- not because you lack evidence, but because you can't disprove the uncertainty with a definitive enough statement.

These statements are so simple, so basic to the fundamentals of psychology, that you won't find anyone purposefully defining them in a way that will satisfy pro/endos.

Take, again, the cultural exclusion. Did you know that there's a section in the back of the DSM that gives examples of cultural forms of dissociation?

No.

Guaranteed you did not know that.

But it's there. None of the things described are remotely similar to the very recent trend of lonely white boys in America making pony tulpas in their teens (you can't come for me, that's practically a direct quote from your favorite tulpa author).

But my point is, we frequently overlook this obvious lack of knowledge of general psychology and essential basic resources.

We continually ignore that these corrections mean that they are not knowledgeable in what they're talking about.

But they look knowledgeable in other areas because you can't win against a subjective experience.

Hell, one of the most used sources being used, in every screencapture, follows the quote with "but this is disputed", and no one bats an eye.

But how can you properly judge what you're experiencing if you don't have even the basic knowledge needed to be interpreting the weakly defined concepts you're arguing for or against?

Most can't even accurately define trauma or dissociation and can't access proper articles, how can we be expected to blindly accept their judgement?

I understand the whole, "no one knows you better than yourself." That is absolutely true and I fully support that statement (shocking, I know). My issue comes from the fact that there is an obvious and clear lack of knowledge on the language and concepts surrounding their experiences.

Yes, absolutely, you are experiencing this thing, I believe you and I support you.

But I also see the statements that are so off the mark that I can't, in good conscious, believe your own unsubstantiated theories about how and why it's happening, and the only language you have to use is twisted versions of another concept entirely.

Now, when I say that, I'm talking about things like gateway systems and walk ins and walk outs, the supernatural being introduced to the same discussions as DID and OSDD.

Or of being born plural, where the TOSD briefly describes the unintegrated sense of self that all children have and the definition of "trauma" is so incredibly misunderstood, and how symptoms of other disorders can subjectively feel like the symptoms of another, but no one wants to hear that, or about the harm that incorrect treatments based on biased, uneducated self reporting can cause.

And it goes on and on, repeating on a loop.

And we just keep ignoring that they can't even get basic facts right.

[potaosoup]

Alright, so I think this might be the next misinformation/anti-trans talking point and it's got me furious, cause it's just blatant misinterpretation of science.

So the BBC just published this article, with similar headlines echoed by several explicitly right-wing news outlets, including The Daily Signal, The Telegraph, and Hot Air (Red flag #1: absolutely no coverage from any scientific media orgs. or typically reputable sources). In it, Hannah Barnes, who - it should be noted - has based her entire recent career on peddling transphobic gender-critical rhetoric, writes:

"The original study of 44 children, who all took the controversial drugs for a year or more, found no mental health impact - neither benefits nor harm. But a re-analysis of that data now suggests 34% saw their mental health deteriorate, while 29% improved."

(Red flag #2: note the use of the word controversial, framing puberty blockers as a fairly debated topic when, in reality, are widely accepted by scientific and medical groups as a way to help trans youth work through the extremely hard time that is puberty along with proper medical treatment.)

The article continues by casting further doubt on the safety, usefulness, and necessity of puberty blockers, really nothing new as far as what we've seen before.

But if I know anything, it's that bigots of any kind just love having a little number that they can brandish, which makes sense, given that they almost never have any actual facts in their favour. So let's take a quick look at this groundbreaking new analysis they're referring to.

First and foremost, this analysis is not peer reviewed, and the disclaimer at the very top even says the following:

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

So any claims that this could directly cause serious reconsideration of well-established clinical guidelines are false. (People are making up untrue science to back anti-trans policies, yes, but medical organizations are absolutely not going to see this as a reason to change practices.)

Now, I am not in a position to make any substantive judgments on the numbers or how they were analyzed, but I would like to demonstrate how it is completely feasible to, with a basic level of scientific literacy, to just read the works that these people cite and actually understand what's being said here. All the following stuff is what I took straight from this analysis and the authors' own conclusions.

This is not a study casting doubt on the effects of puberty blockers.

What it is, is a look at some faulty data and possibly sloppy analysis. It's basically saying that when the original study used the average of all their results as their main conclusion from the data, they failed to highlight the range of both positive and negative experiences reported by participants (yes, think Spiders Georg)

The original study had an extremely small sample group of only 44, and by the end, only had 15 respondents. They also didn't have any control group, adding to the limited scope of the study. The 2023 re-analysis specifically says that these flaws in the methods are exactly why it shouldn't be used to draw broad conclusions about the effectiveness or safety of puberty blockers, and that we should really be looking at the different factors that could lead to either improvement or deterioration of trans kids' mental health.

Given the relatively low proportion of the sample in the clinical or borderline range, the rates of clinically significant change should be treated with caution. [...] Using the reliable and clinically significant change approach to analysis of clinical study data provides an opportunity for research teams in this field to conduct fuller analysis of their data to ascertain whether there are any variables which might predict which children with GD are most likely to benefit psychologically and which are most likely to deteriorate, rather than considering the group as uniform in likely response to treatment.

So, no, this isn't some earth-shattering evidence that puberty blockers are actually making kids more depressed. I don't think that we should be surprised that transphobes will try to twist the narrative in their favour - it's what they've always done. But I'd rather treat this as a moment to show how scientific literacy and the ability to spend even a few minutes digging into the headlines you see is one of the best ways to counter misinformation and to see the ways that the people trying to strip us of our rights use the articles and studies that people won't actually read to bolster their bigotry.

Of course, simply pointing out the flaws of their logic or misinterpretations of fact will not stop them from pursuing their hateful ideology, but it can equip you to see the rhetoric they're using and possibly keep yourself and others from falling down pipelines of disinformation in good faith.

Science and solidarity,

-Your local trans nerd

[phd-thesis-support]

Unlocking the Secrets of a Stellar Literature Review: Your Step-by-Step Guide

A literature review is a cornerstone of academic research. Not only is it an account of existing work but also an examination that identifies gaps and builds on previous knowledge to assist in new discoveries. However, the preparation for an effective literature review is not just about reading articles. Follow along with the visual guide as it outlines some secrets to mastering this essential task.

1. Navigating the Research Landscape

Every research journey begins by understanding the bigger picture. This step in the literature review helps frame your research by identifying gaps in knowledge and defining the scope of studies that have already been done. It will ensure that your research question is strong and focuses on real challenges affecting your field.

2. Search Strategies and Database Exploration

The digital age has transformed access to information. For the final review, you must get well at data search techniques, which include keyword optimization, Boolean operators, and advanced filtering.

3. Evaluating and Selecting Sources

All sources are not equal. Article credibility, relevance, and reliability require evaluation of sources. While avoiding low-quality sources, give preference to peer-reviewed journals, authoritative books, and well-cited articles that support your research goals.

4. Organizing and Synthesizing Information

Once you’ve gathered your sources, the real work begins. Organize your findings thematically or chronologically, and synthesize insights to create a coherent narrative. This process not only highlights connections but also demonstrates your analytical skills.

5. Identifying Trends and Themes

A great literature review is more than a summary form of interpretation. Search for trends that may be emerging, recurring themes, and gaps in the literature. Identifying those patterns makes your review original and situates your research within the greater academic discussion.

A well-crafted literature review is more than an academic requirement; it is also an opportunity to voice yourself in the scholarly conversation. Mastering these steps will not only lead to a compelling review but will also lay a strong foundation for your research journey. Let's dive right in, explore deeply, and let your literature review shine!

For further research assistance, reach out to us on our WhatsApp wa.me/+918217879258

[thesis-toolkit]

Blog: Mastering Academic Writing and Publishing

In academia, writing and publishing are integral to sharing knowledge and advancing fields of study. Crafting well-researched, impactful papers and navigating the publishing process requires dedication and strategy. This guide breaks down the essentials of academic writing and publishing for aspiring researchers and scholars.

Understanding Academic Writing

Academic writing is a formal and structured style of communication used in scholarly works. Its core characteristics include:

Clarity and Precision: Clear articulation of ideas, free of ambiguity.

Evidence-Based Arguments: Grounding assertions in verified research.

Objective Tone: Avoiding personal bias and opinions.

Proper Referencing: Citing all sources meticulously to maintain academic integrity.

Steps to Effective Academic Writing

Choose a Research Topic Select a topic that is relevant, unique, and aligns with your expertise or interest.

Conduct Thorough Research Dive into existing literature to understand the current state of research and identify gaps.

Structure Your Paper Most academic papers follow a standard format:

Abstract: A summary of the research.

Introduction: Context and objectives.

Methodology: How the research was conducted.

Results: Findings and analysis.

Discussion and Conclusion: Implications and future directions.

Focus on Language and Style Write in an active voice, use technical terms appropriately, and avoid unnecessary jargon.

Proofreading and Peer Review Edit for grammar, coherence, and format compliance. Seeking feedback from peers can significantly enhance the quality of your work.

The Publishing Process

Select the Right Journal Identify journals in your field with a good reputation and alignment with your research theme.

Adhere to Guidelines Follow the journal's submission and formatting requirements.

Submit and Revise Prepare for revisions after peer review. Address feedback constructively to strengthen your manuscript.

Promote Your Work Once published, share your research through conferences, academic networks, and social media platforms.

Challenges in Academic Publishing

Rejection Rates: High competition can lead to rejection; persistence is key.

Time-Consuming Reviews: The peer-review process can be lengthy.

Publication Fees: Open-access journals often charge substantial fees.

Tips for Success

Collaborate: Work with experienced researchers to learn the nuances of publishing.

Stay Updated: Regularly read journals to keep pace with developments in your field.

Seek Mentorship: Guidance from seasoned academics can be invaluable.

Publishing in academia is more than a milestone; it’s a medium to contribute to global knowledge. Embrace the journey of academic writing and publishing with perseverance and integrity.

for more information visist:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/105035615/admin/feed/following/

and also

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/writebing_thesis-thesiswriting-assignmenthelp-activity-7264464908598075392-HGAi?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

[theresearchhub12]

Four Steps to Write a Review Paper: By The Research Hub.

Writing a review paper, especially if it is the first ever, can be very intimidating. Yet, breaking it into manageable chunks helps break down the process into smaller parts and hence makes it more enjoyable. While an above-average piece of writing puts existing work together in a nutshell, the good one also creates some critical insight while highlighting gaps in literature. Be it an experienced academic or a PhD student entering the realm of publications, this guide is going to help you write an impactful review paper.

Step 1: Topic Selection A good review paper begins from a narrow and specific topic. This is how to do it:

Identify a Gap: "What is the underexplored or controversial area in your field? Be Specific: Avoid broad topics like "Artificial Intelligence." Narrow it down to something like "The Role of Explainability in AI Decision-Making.". Check Relevance: Make sure the topic belongs to the present trends and has sufficient literature that is accessible. Once you have your topic, determine the scope. Are you providing a general overview or focusing on a niche area? A defined scope will enable you to guide the breadth and depth of your paper.

Step 2 Do an Extenstive Literature Search A good review paper requires an excellent grasp of the available literature. Here are the steps:

Strategically search for sources: Use scientific databases like PubMed, Scopus, or Google Scholar. Remain organized: Make use of reference management tools like Zotero or EndNote to keep track of sources. Critically evaluate sources: Focus on peer-reviewed journals and highly cited articles, alongside recent studies, for credibility. While reading and dissecting the literature, you are looking for patterns, contradictions, and emerging trends. You then highlight key findings and note down the methods, results, and limitations.   Step 3: Organizing Your Review Paper A structured review paper is easier to follow than a non-structured one. When one is maintaining a non-linear format, one can consider the following format for structure:

Abstract : Summarize the topic, objectives, findings, and implications in 150–250 words. Introduction: Expose the relevance of the topic to be reviewed and your goals for the review. The scope and main questions should be clearly discussed. Body: Structure the main content in themes, methods, or chronological development. Use subheadings to structure your arguments and provide critical analysis rather than writing a lot of summaries. Discussion and Conclusion: Identify areas of the literature that are lacking, advance potential future research areas, and contextualize your findings in the wider setting. References: Your sources must appear in the proper citation format (APA, MLA, etc.). Step 4: Revise and Refine Even the best drafts require revision. Take the time to refine your paper to clarity, coherence, and quality. Get Feedback: Share your draft with colleagues or mentors for constructive criticism. Revise Ruthlessly: Chop out unnecessary jargon, redundancy, and dead wood filler. Check for Consistency: Clarify your argument so your reasoning follows logically and the tone is consistent. Proofread: Fix grammatical, spelling, and formatting mistakes. You might also want to run your work through Grammarly or similar tools. If you're publishing in a journal, read their submission guidelines very closely and make sure your final version fits all of those conditions in detail.

Conclusion Writing a review paper is an iterative process of thorough research, critical thinking, and clear communication. These four steps - selecting the focused topic, conducting wholesome research, structuring your paper very well, and revising meticulously - will get you ready to write a really good review paper.

Now, a review paper does not merely summarize-it creates synthesized knowledge and takes things a step forward toward new discovery. Happy writing!

Do you want any particular examples or pictures included for your audience?

For More Info Connect us on https://wa.me/919424229851/

[editorbjpmr]

**BJPMR: Submit Your Work To A Prestigious Journal.**

The British Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Research (BJPMR) is a reputable platform for researchers aiming to publish their findings in pharmaceutical and biomedical sciences. With the ISSN 2456–9836, BJPMR is dedicated to maintaining high standards of originality and academic rigor in all submissions. This blog post explores essential tips for authors to ensure their manuscripts meet the journal’s expectations and maximize their chances of publication.

Ensure Originality and Academic Rigor

Originality is crucial in academic publishing, especially in competitive fields like pharmaceuticals and biomedical research. BJPMR values unique contributions that advance knowledge and understanding. Authors must ensure their work is original and free from plagiarism. Using plagiarism detection tools before submission can help verify the originality of the manuscript. Additionally, maintaining academic rigor through robust research methodologies and thorough data analysis is essential. This commitment not only enhances the quality of the work but also builds the author’s credibility within the scientific community.

Follow Submission Guidelines Precisely

Each journal has specific submission guidelines, and BJPMR is no exception. Authors must carefully read and adhere to these guidelines, which outline formatting requirements, length restrictions, and citation styles. Following these guidelines precisely demonstrates professionalism and attention to detail, which are crucial traits in academic publishing. Submissions that do not conform to these guidelines may be returned without review, wasting valuable time for authors. Therefore, meticulous compliance with BJPMR’s submission guidelines is vital for a successful submission.

Highlight Novel Research Findings Clearly

When submitting to BJPMR, it is essential to clearly articulate novel research findings. This involves framing the research question effectively and demonstrating how the findings contribute to existing knowledge in the field. Authors should present their results in a straightforward manner, using clear and concise language to emphasize the significance of their contributions. Well-structured abstracts and introductions are particularly important, as they capture the reader’s attention and set the tone for the entire manuscript.

Use Clear, Concise Writing Style

Clear and concise writing is crucial for effective communication in scientific literature. Authors should strive to use straightforward language that conveys complex ideas without ambiguity. Avoiding jargon and unnecessary technical terms enhances readability and ensures that the work is accessible to a broader audience. Each sentence should contribute to the overall narrative, eliminating redundancy and maintaining focus on the research objectives. By prioritizing clarity, authors can significantly improve the impact of their manuscripts.

Include Relevant, Recent Citations

Citations play a critical role in situating research within the existing body of knowledge. Authors should ensure that their references are relevant, recent, and credible. Citing foundational studies and the latest research provides context and demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the field. BJPMR encourages authors to utilize a variety of sources, including peer-reviewed articles, books, and authoritative websites. This not only strengthens the manuscript but also enhances its credibility and scholarly impact.

Ensure Accurate Data Presentation Always

Accurate data presentation is essential in scientific research. Authors must ensure that all data included in the manuscript is correctly represented and analyzed. This includes providing appropriate tables, figures, and statistical analyses that support the research findings. Misrepresentation of data can lead to misunderstandings and undermine the integrity of the research. BJPMR expects authors to adhere to high standards of data accuracy and transparency, which are vital for maintaining trust within the scientific community.

Proofread Carefully for Language Errors

Language errors can detract from the quality of a manuscript and affect its readability. Authors are strongly encouraged to proofread their work meticulously to eliminate grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors. Utilizing tools such as grammar checkers and asking colleagues for feedback can help identify overlooked mistakes. A well-edited manuscript reflects professionalism and a commitment to quality, making a positive impression on reviewers and editors alike. Ensuring language accuracy is a vital step before submission.

Respond Promptly to Reviewer Feedback

Receiving reviewer feedback is an integral part of the publishing process. Authors should approach this feedback constructively, taking the time to address all comments and suggestions thoroughly. Promptly responding to reviewer feedback demonstrates professionalism and respect for the peer-review process. It is essential to revise the manuscript according to the suggestions provided and clearly explain how each comment was addressed in the response letter. This collaborative approach not only improves the manuscript but also enhances the author’s reputation.

/media/eb08c4352ce4e0511d5797d66a01c8af

FAQs

1. What types of manuscripts does BJPMR accept?

BJPMR accepts various types of manuscripts, including original research articles, review articles, case studies, and short communications. The journal is dedicated to publishing work in the fields of pharmaceuticals and biomedical research, welcoming submissions that contribute new knowledge or innovative methodologies. Each manuscript undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to ensure quality and relevance, providing authors with a platform to showcase their findings effectively.

2. How can I ensure my manuscript is original?

To ensure originality, authors should utilize plagiarism detection tools before submission. This helps identify any unintended similarities with existing works. Additionally, conducting thorough literature reviews can ensure that the research question is novel and contributes to the field. It’s also crucial to write in your voice and style, as this will help differentiate your work from others. BJPMR emphasizes the importance of originality in maintaining academic integrity.

3. What should I do if I receive reviewer feedback?

If you receive reviewer feedback, approach it constructively. Carefully read the comments and suggestions, then revise your manuscript accordingly. Address each point raised by the reviewers and make necessary changes to improve clarity and quality. In your response letter, outline how you addressed their feedback, showing appreciation for their insights. This collaborative approach not only strengthens your manuscript but also demonstrates professionalism to the BJPMR editorial team.

4. How important is it to follow submission guidelines?

Following submission guidelines is extremely important as it demonstrates professionalism and respect for the journal’s processes. Manuscripts that do not adhere to these guidelines may be returned without review, delaying the publication process. Each journal has specific requirements for formatting, citation style, and length, so authors should carefully read and comply with BJPMR’s guidelines to maximize their chances of a successful submission.

5. How can I stay updated on BJPMR publications?

To stay updated on BJPMR publications, subscribe to the journal’s newsletter and regularly visit the official website. The journal frequently publishes new articles, updates on special issues, and calls for papers. Following BJPMR on social media platforms and subscribing to their YouTube channel will also keep you informed about the latest research trends and opportunities to engage with the journal’s community.

Conclusion

The British Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Research (BJPMR) is an esteemed platform for researchers seeking to publish their work in the fields of pharmaceuticals and biomedical sciences. By ensuring originality and academic rigor, following submission guidelines, and highlighting novel research findings, authors can significantly enhance their chances of publication. BJPMR is committed to fostering high-quality research that contributes to the advancement of knowledge and practice in the scientific community.

Share Your Research: Submit to BJPMR

For researchers eager to share their valuable findings, we invite you to submit your manuscripts to the British Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research. Please send your submissions and inquiries to editor@bjpmr.org. We look forward to reviewing your work and contributing to the advancement of biomedical science.

“Subscribe to BJPMR YouTube channel for Research Insights”

Don’t forget to subscribe to the **BJPMR YouTube channel** for the latest updates and insights in biomedical research. By subscribing, you’ll gain access to expert interviews, research highlights, and valuable discussions on the latest breakthroughs in the field. Stay connected with a global community of researchers and professionals, and never miss an opportunity to learn about cutting-edge discoveries that are shaping the future of healthcare. Whether you’re a seasoned researcher or just starting out, the BJPMR YouTube channel is an essential resource for staying informed and inspired.

[sophieinwonderland]

i was scrolling r/SC and its weird the mods are saying you arent responding to their modmail responses and claiming you are "threatening sub members". I have seen no evidence of this anywhere.

Ive seen the odd claims that somehow you are only citing older DSM sources because it "supports your narrative" but then they dont read the criteria for how vague it actually is. Nothing you have show has supported the sysmed claims and I have a degree! I've studied this for more then 6 years and I'm licensed! It's vague for a reason.

The mods there seem to think that our life should revolve around them just because I sent a message to them asking them to remove a post mentioning my name and age. I have asks in my box, and other posts I want to make. I got what I wanted from that conversation, which was proof that I reached out to them to ask them to remove comments naming me. I might respond further if I find the time and the interest. But I haven't yet decided.

As for threatening members of the subreddit... I really have no idea what they're talking about. If anyone there has received any actual threats, it wasn't from me.

I think either they're making things up, or are taking some sort of statement that I'll continue to post about their hate sub as a "threat."

I don't have any idea what they're talking about with citing older DSM entries either. I rarely discuss the DSM, and when I do, it's almost always the DSM-5.

I prefer the ICD-11 as my go-to source, as it explicitly acknowledges that you can have multiple "distinct personality states" without a disorder.

Furthermore, most of the published papers researching and acknowledging endogenic plurality that I cite have all come out within the past decade.

Varieties of Tulpa Experiences: 2016

The Plurality chapter of Transgender Mental Health: 2018

The ICD-11's Boundary With Normality for DID: 2019

Exploring the Utility and Personal Relevance of Co-Produced Multiplicity Resources with Young People: 2021

Conceptualizing multiplicity spectrum experiences: A systematic review and thematic synthesis: 2023

It's just a body: A community-based participatory exploration of the experiences and health care needs for transgender plural people: 2023

And many others.

Practically the only time I cite the DSM is when debunking people falsely claiming the DSM says you need trauma to be a system.

Otherwise, I generally don't consider it that relevant. It never claims you need trauma to be a system. It acknowledges possession states as real phenomena. And the existence of criterion C implies you can meet the other criteria without a disorder. But I feel there are better sources out there to use.

Like you say, it's vague. Despite leaning towards the existence of non-disordered and endogenic plurality, it doesn't go far enough to make it valuable for me.

I'm certainly not going to use older versions of the DSM as sources.

But yeah, there really is nothing to back up their claims. I've been asking anti-endos for years for even ONE single peer-reviewed paper stating that you can't be plural without trauma or a disorder. Just one.

Because I can name countless reputable psychologists and psychiatrists who have made it clear they believe in other forms of plurality in peer-reviewed papers from reputable publishers. I've seen others who are open to the possibility but seem neutral for no other reason than the fact their specialization is in trauma disorders, and they don't deal with people who aren't traumatized or don't have mental illnesses of some kind.

What I have never once seen is a single anti-endo provide a peer-reviewed source stating that you can't possibly be plural without trauma. And I mean this with any wording. It doesn't have to say "plural" or "system," as long as it communicates that this is the only possible way to have multiple self-conscious agents in your head.

See, for example, how the creators of the theory of structural dissociation have said in one paper that "self-conscious" "dissociated parts of the personality" may be involved in mediumship and hypnosis.

In the years I've been asking for this, not one person has been able to link to a peer reviewed source where a psychiatrist or psychologist has stated the opposite.

All they have on their side is The Big Lie. I've talked about this recently. Just repeat a claim over and over again until people believe it. Claim the experts support and agree with you, and you never need to source any of those non-existent experts. That's what r/systemscringe, and sysmeds in general, are depending on. That their members will be gullible enough to just accept whatever they say.

[thesiswriting01]

Mastering the Art of Thesis Writing: A Comprehensive Guide for Success 2024

Introduction

Writing a thesis is one of the most important academic tasks a student undertakes. Whether it's for a master's or a PhD program, a thesis represents the culmination of years of learning, research, and critical thinking. But the journey of thesis writing can be overwhelming if you don’t know where to begin or how to proceed. This guide is here to demystify the thesis-writing process, offering you step-by-step advice, tips, and best practices to help you craft a successful thesis.

1. Understanding What a Thesis Is

A thesis is a formal academic document that presents the author’s research and findings in response to a particular question or hypothesis. It showcases your ability to conduct in-depth research, engage with existing literature, and make original contributions to your field. The key objective is to argue a point based on substantial evidence.

Main Components of a Thesis:

Introduction: An overview of the research topic and objectives.

Literature Review: A survey of relevant literature to provide context.

Methodology: Explanation of how the research was conducted.

Results: Presentation of the findings.

Discussion: Interpretation of the results and their significance.

Conclusion: A summary of the research and recommendations for further study.

2. Choosing the Right Thesis Topic

Selecting the right topic is crucial. A well-chosen topic should:

Interest You: Passion for the subject keeps you motivated.

Be Researchable: Ensure there are sufficient resources and scope for research.

Contribute to Your Field: Pick a topic that adds value to existing literature.

Be Manageable: Choose a topic you can reasonably complete within your timeline.

Tips for Choosing a Topic:

Brainstorm with your supervisor and peers.

Review recent papers in your field.

Identify gaps in current research where you can make an original contribution.

3. Conducting Thorough Research

The backbone of any successful thesis is thorough research. This includes both primary research (such as surveys or experiments) and secondary research (like literature reviews and data analysis). Ensure you have a good balance between theory and practice.

Steps for Effective Research:

Develop a solid research question or hypothesis.

Use academic databases (e.g., JSTOR, PubMed, Google Scholar) to gather literature.

Take organized notes and track your sources meticulously.

Avoid confirmation bias by considering diverse perspectives.

4. Structuring Your Thesis

A well-structured thesis is easier to read and more persuasive. Follow your institution’s formatting guidelines, but also ensure logical flow between sections.

Typical Thesis Structure:

Title Page: Includes the thesis title, your name, and institution.

Abstract: A brief summary of the entire research (around 250-300 words).

Table of Contents: Lists all chapters and sections.

Introduction: Presents the research question, objectives, and background.

Literature Review: Discusses previous research and theoretical framework.

Methodology: Describes the methods used to conduct the research.

Results/Findings: Presents the data collected and analyzed.

Discussion: Interprets the results and how they relate to the research question.

Conclusion: Summarizes the thesis and suggests future research avenues.

References: Lists all sources cited in your work.

Appendices (if needed): Includes supplementary material such as raw data or questionnaires.

5. Writing the Thesis: A Step-by-Step Process

Thesis writing can be broken down into manageable steps to avoid being overwhelmed.

Step 1: Write the Introduction

Begin with an engaging opening.

Clearly state your research question and its importance.

Outline your research objectives.

Step 2: Conduct and Write the Literature Review

Review key sources and identify gaps in the existing knowledge.

Discuss how your research fits within the broader academic discourse.

Step 3: Explain the Methodology

Clearly describe the research methods used (e.g., qualitative, quantitative).

Explain why you chose specific techniques and how they support your objectives.

Step 4: Present the Results

Provide a factual presentation of the data collected.

Use charts, graphs, and tables to make data easier to digest.

Step 5: Analyze the Findings in the Discussion

Interpret the data and how it supports (or refutes) your hypothesis.

Discuss implications for your field of study.

Step 6: Conclude

Summarize key findings and their significance.

Offer recommendations for future research.

Step 7: Proofread and Revise

Edit for clarity, grammar, and formatting.

Ensure all citations are properly formatted.

6. Common Challenges and How to Overcome Them

1. Procrastination: Writing a thesis can feel daunting, leading to procrastination. Set small, achievable goals, and create a timeline with specific deadlines for each chapter.

2. Writer’s Block: If you’re stuck, try freewriting or brainstorming. Sometimes switching to another section of the thesis can help you get unstuck.

3. Time Management: Balance your time between research, writing, and revision. Use tools like Gantt charts to track progress.

4. Data Overload: Organize your data early. Tools like Excel or qualitative analysis software can help manage and categorize information.

5. Imposter Syndrome: Many students doubt their abilities during thesis writing. Remember, if you've made it this far, you're more than capable. Seek feedback from peers and advisors to gain confidence.

7. Citing Your Sources

Plagiarism is a serious academic offense, and proper citation is crucial. Use citation styles such as APA, MLA, or Chicago as required by your institution. Keep a bibliography throughout your research process to avoid last-minute rushes.

Common Citation Tools:

EndNote

Zotero

Mendeley

These tools can help you manage references and generate citations automatically.

8. Seeking Feedback and Revision

Before submitting your thesis, get feedback from your advisor or a peer. Constructive criticism can significantly improve your work. Consider hiring a professional proofreader to ensure your thesis is free from grammatical errors.

Final Revision Checklist:

Have you addressed your research question?

Is the thesis logically organized?

Are citations correct?

Is the language clear and concise?

9. Preparing for Your Thesis Defense

Once your thesis is written, you’ll need to defend it in front of a committee. Practice presenting your key findings and anticipate potential questions. Confidence in your research will make a strong impression.

Conclusion

Writing a thesis is a challenging but rewarding academic experience. It allows you to explore a topic deeply, contribute to your field, and demonstrate your research skills. By following this guide and maintaining a consistent work ethic, you can successfully complete your thesis and open doors to future academic and professional opportunities.

[aimlayresearch]

Scopus Journal: An Academic Guide

Scopus Journal is a comprehensive, abstract and citation database that covers a wide range of subjects across science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and arts and humanities. Launched by Elsevier in 2004, Scopus is widely recognized as one of the largest databases of peer-reviewed literature, including scientific journals, books, and conference proceedings. As of now, Scopus indexes over 40,000 peer-reviewed journals, providing a rich resource for researchers to find articles relevant to their fields.

What are Scopus Indexed Journals?

Scopus Indexed journals refer to the academic journals that are indexed in the Scopus database. These journals undergo rigorous selection criteria, ensuring that only high-quality and credible publications are included. Being indexed in Scopus is often seen as a hallmark of quality for journals, given that the platform only includes sources that meet strict editorial and ethical standards.

Categories of Scopus Journals

Science, Technology, and Medicine (STM): Journals in the fields of natural sciences, technology, engineering, and medicine form a substantial portion of Scopus. These include topics like biology, chemistry, physics, computer science, and medical sciences. Journals in these fields are heavily cited and form the backbone of the academic research community.

Social Sciences: Journals in disciplines like sociology, psychology, economics, and political science also make up a significant portion of Scopus. These subjects are crucial for understanding societal trends, human behavior, and global economics.

Arts and Humanities: Though less represented in citation databases compared to science and technology, Scopus also covers journals from arts, literature, history, and cultural studies. This ensures that all forms of knowledge dissemination are included in its comprehensive database.

Importance of Scopus Journals

Scopus journals are vital for various reasons, particularly for researchers, institutions, and funding bodies. Below are some of the key reasons why these journals are so significant.

1. Academic Reputation

For researchers and institutions, publishing in a Scopus-indexed journal is often viewed as a mark of credibility. The rigorous selection process of Scopus means that journals indexed here maintain a high level of academic integrity and quality. For scholars, having their work published in a Scopus journal not only enhances their academic reputation but also increases the visibility of their research on a global scale.

2. Citations and Impact

One of the critical functions of Scopus is tracking citations. Citation metrics, such as the h-index and Impact Factor (IF), are essential indicators of the influence of a journal and the individual articles it publishes. Journals with high citation rates tend to be viewed as more influential within their respective fields. Moreover, researchers’ work in Scopus journals is more likely to be discovered, read, and cited, which can significantly affect their academic careers.

3. Research Funding and Career Advancement

For many researchers, publishing in Scopus-indexed journals is often a requirement for securing research grants or career promotions. Funding bodies and academic institutions often consider the quality and citation metrics of publications when awarding research funds or promoting faculty members. In many cases, universities also use Scopus data to evaluate the performance and productivity of their academic staff.

4. Access to Global Research

Scopus serves as a bridge to connect researchers with the broader global research community. By indexing journals from over 100 countries, Scopus provides access to diverse research perspectives and methodologies. This is especially important for scholars in developing countries, who may find it difficult to get their work noticed on other platforms. Scopus journals help in promoting global collaboration and knowledge sharing across borders.

Selection Criteria for Scopus Journals

Not every journal can be indexed in Scopus. The platform has a rigorous selection process that journals must pass before being included in the database. Below are some of the key criteria that Scopus uses when evaluating journals:

Peer-Review: Journals must have a robust peer-review system in place, ensuring that all articles published are of high quality and have undergone rigorous scrutiny by experts in the field.

Ethical Publishing Practices: Journals must adhere to ethical publishing practices, such as those outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This ensures that issues like plagiarism, author misconduct, and conflicts of interest are minimized.

Regularity and Stability: Scopus requires that journals publish on a regular schedule. Journals that have irregular publication patterns or are unstable are less likely to be included in the database.

Citations and Impact: Scopus also evaluates journals based on their citation impact, which reflects how often articles from a journal are cited in other research. Journals with higher citation rates are more likely to be indexed.

Diversity of Authors and Editorial Board: Scopus looks for journals with a diverse group of authors and an international editorial board, reflecting a wide range of perspectives and expertise.

How to Find Scopus Journals?

Finding journals indexed in Scopus is relatively straightforward. Researchers can use the Scopus website to search for journals by subject, keyword, or journal title. Many universities and institutions also provide access to Scopus through their libraries, allowing researchers to explore the vast collection of indexed journals.

Tips for Researchers

For researchers looking to publish in a Scopus journal, here are some tips to increase your chances of success:

Choose the Right Journal: Make sure the journal you select is relevant to your field of study and is indexed in Scopus. The journal's aims and scope should align with your research focus.

Follow Submission Guidelines: Each journal has its own submission requirements, which may include formatting styles, word limits, and citation styles. Adhering to these guidelines is crucial for getting your article accepted.

Peer-Review Process: Be prepared for a rigorous peer-review process. Receiving feedback from experts in the field can improve the quality of your research and make it more likely to be published.

Conclusion

Scopus journals are a cornerstone of academic research, providing a reliable and credible platform for researchers to publish and disseminate their work. Whether you are a seasoned academic or a new researcher, publishing in Scopus journals can enhance your academic standing, increase the visibility of your research, and open doors to future funding opportunities. Understanding the significance of Scopus and the process of getting indexed is crucial for navigating the academic publishing landscape.

Visit us now for more information: www.researchpartner.in

[solvedprojectblog]

Top Strategies for Excelling in NMIMS Assignments and IMT Projects

Achieving excellence in NMIMS assignments and IMT projects requires a combination of effective strategies and diligent effort. Whether you’re tackling complex assignments or in-depth projects, employing the right techniques can significantly enhance your performance. Here’s a comprehensive guide to help you excel in your academic tasks.

 1. Understand the Assignment or Project Brief

Clarify Objectives

Read Thoroughly: Carefully review the assignment or project brief to fully understand the requirements and objectives.

Ask Questions: If anything is unclear, seek clarification from your instructor or project guide to ensure you meet all expectations.

Define Scope and Goals

Set Clear Goals: Outline the main goals and deliverables of your assignment or project. This will help you focus your efforts and stay on track.

Break Down Tasks: Divide the work into smaller, manageable tasks with specific deadlines to maintain organization and momentum.

 2. Conduct Thorough Research

Gather Quality Information

Use Credible Sources: Access academic journals, books, and reliable online resources to gather relevant data and insights.

Organize Your Research: Keep detailed notes and categorize information to streamline the writing process and ensure you cover all aspects of the topic.

 Create a Structured Outline

Draft an Outline: Develop a detailed outline to organize your thoughts and structure your content logically.

Include Key Sections: Ensure your outline covers essential components such as introduction, literature review, methodology, analysis, and conclusion.

3. Write and Edit Effectively

Follow Guidelines

Adhere to Formatting Rules: Follow specific formatting guidelines provided by NMIMS or IMT, including font size, margins, and citation style.

Maintain Clarity: Write clearly and concisely, ensuring that your arguments are well-supported and easy to follow.

Revise and Proofread

Edit Thoroughly: Review your work for grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and clarity issues. Revise sentences and paragraphs as needed.

Seek Feedback: Obtain feedback from peers, mentors, or tutors to refine your work and ensure it meets high standards.

 4. Utilize Resources Wisely

Leverage Solved Examples

Study High-Quality Examples: Review solved assignments and projects to understand the expected quality and structure.

Learn, Don’t Copy: Use these examples as learning tools to guide your own work rather than copying content directly.

Seek Academic Support

Access School Resources: Utilize resources offered by NMIMS and IMT, such as libraries, academic databases, and support services.

Engage with Experts: If necessary, seek assistance from academic consultants or writing services to enhance your work.

 5. Manage Your Time Efficiently

Create a Timeline

Plan Your Schedule: Develop a timeline that outlines deadlines for each phase of your assignment or project, including research, writing, and revision.

Stick to Deadlines: Adhere to your timeline to avoid last-minute rush and ensure all aspects of your work are completed on time.

Avoid Procrastination

Start Early: Begin working on your assignments and projects as early as possible to give yourself ample time for research and revisions.

Stay Focused: Minimize distractions and allocate specific time blocks for working on your tasks to maintain productivity.

 6. Maintain Academic Integrity

Cite Sources Properly

Follow Citation Guidelines: Ensure all sources are correctly cited according to the required style guide (e.g., APA, MLA).

Avoid Plagiarism: Produce original work and use proper citations to avoid any issues with academic misconduct.

Understand Policies

Familiarize Yourself: Be aware of NMIMS’s and IMT’s academic policies regarding plagiarism, submission deadlines, and academic conduct.

Adhere to Standards: Follow all guidelines to ensure your work complies with institutional requirements and standards.

Excelling in NMIMS assignments and IMT projects involves a strategic approach, diligent research, and effective time management. By understanding assignment requirements, utilizing resources efficiently, and maintaining academic integrity, you can achieve outstanding results in your academic endeavors. Implement these strategies to navigate your assignments and projects with confidence and success.

[researchlinkindia]

Law Assignment Help with Case Study: A Comprehensive Guide

Law assignments, especially those involving case studies, can be complex and demanding. They require a deep understanding of legal principles, critical thinking, and excellent writing skills. Students often seek assistance to navigate these challenges and produce high-quality assignments. This guide explores the benefits of Law assignment help with case study, what to look for in a reliable service, and tips for success.

Benefits of Law Assignment Help with Case Studies

Expert Guidance:

Professional services offer assistance from experienced legal experts who have in-depth knowledge of various law fields. This expertise ensures that your case study is accurate and well-analyzed.

Improved Understanding:

Working with experts can enhance your understanding of complex legal concepts and how to apply them in real-life scenarios. This can be beneficial for both your assignments and future career.

Time Management:

Law students often juggle multiple responsibilities. Professional help can save you time, allowing you to focus on other academic or personal commitments.

High-Quality Work:

Professional services ensure that your assignments are of high quality, free from errors, and formatted correctly. This can significantly improve your grades.

Customized Solutions:

Assignment help services offer customized solutions tailored to your specific requirements and guidelines provided by your institution.

What to Look for in a Reliable Law Assignment Help Service

Qualified Experts:

Ensure the service employs qualified legal experts with relevant academic and professional backgrounds. Look for experts who have experience in writing law assignments and case studies.

Original Content:

Plagiarism is a serious academic offense. Choose a service that guarantees original content and provides plagiarism reports.

Confidentiality:

Your privacy should be a priority. Ensure the service has a strict confidentiality policy to protect your personal and academic information.

Timely Delivery:

Meeting deadlines is crucial. Select a service known for delivering assignments on time without compromising on quality.

Customer Support:

Reliable customer support is essential for addressing any queries or concerns promptly. Look for services that offer 24/7 support.

Positive Reviews:

Check reviews and testimonials from previous clients to gauge the service's reliability and quality.

Tips for Success in Law Assignments and Case Studies

Understand the Requirements:

Carefully read the assignment guidelines and case study instructions. Ensure you understand what is expected before starting your research.

Thorough Research:

Conduct comprehensive research using credible sources such as legal databases, journals, and textbooks. Gather relevant information to support your arguments.

Critical Analysis:

Analyze the case study critically. Identify key issues, relevant laws, and precedents. Provide well-reasoned arguments and support them with evidence.

Structure Your Assignment:

Organize your assignment logically. Typically, it should include an introduction, body, and conclusion. Ensure each section flows smoothly and coherently.

Cite Properly:

Use the appropriate citation style as specified in the guidelines. Properly cite all sources to avoid plagiarism and give credit to original authors.

Proofread and Edit:

Proofread your assignment to correct any grammatical, spelling, or formatting errors. Editing ensures clarity and precision in your writing.

Seek Feedback:

If possible, seek feedback from peers or professors before submitting your assignment. Constructive feedback can help you improve the quality of your work.

Conclusion

Law assignments with case studies can be challenging, but with the right support and strategies, you can excel in them. Professional law assignment help services provide valuable assistance, ensuring your assignments are accurate, well-researched, and high-quality. When choosing a service, prioritize qualifications, originality, confidentiality, timely delivery, customer support, and positive reviews. Additionally, following the tips for success, such as thorough research, critical analysis, proper structuring, and careful proofreading, will enhance your ability to produce outstanding legal assignments. With these resources and strategies, you can navigate the complexities of law studies and achieve academic success.

For more info. Visit us:

Expert Research Paper Writing Services india

professional research paper writers in india

research paper writing services in india