T'would be a death sentence to prolific scientists since you'll have a statistically significant p value by chance about one in twenty tries
-
-
-
I pray to God that you are trolling me.
-
At p<0.05 your conclusion is wrong 1 in 20 times, no? Not likely to be replicated.
-
So require much larger p-values, if foolish enough to use them at all. I'd sooner believe a friend's anecdote than trust p of merely 0.05.
-
Point taken, but in that case do yourself a favor and never look too closely at the basis for much of our medical scientific wisdom.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Or... replication studies become much more lucrative for the ethically flexible.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That requires a really, really low level of corruption to have a chance of working
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
(And here I thought multiple post-docs, publish-and-perish, and the tenure system were already a sufficient incentive not to join academia.)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
2020: Peer review process in deep crisis on moral grounds. Chinese scientists fleeing country in droves. (I only see stick, no carrot)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I dunno, I'd feel pretty shitty publishing a study that I knew would result in someone's execution.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Simultaneously experiences large drop in any science at all as smart people choose less risky work.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Don't give the assholes there any ideas. They already murder businessmen for making mistakes that get US companies a slap on the wrist...
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.