only? should be "an impressive 42 %". 100 is not the benchmark in a stochastic world...
-
-
-
But that's implicit replication; you can expect file-drawering of non-replicating results, a systematic survey would likely give result <42%
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Doesn't it say 42% of replicating_papers, not 42% of papers_replicated as you say? Yours sounds like correct metric but theirs, questionable
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Shorter- Follow the money, the funding equals results.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Should probably expect young fields to have more error (and error-correction) papers. Field is 19 yo or so? https://link.springer.com/journal/10683 ..
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Better do this quick before over confidence in free market principles leads to global financial melt........Doh!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Corroborates recent
@bryan_caplan's postThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nevertheless i am still confident that experimental economics is useful, other than exciting
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
PLUTO eliminates the reproducibility crisis of scholarly communication through a new system based on blockchain. http://pluto.network
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.