As a very general rule, I've found that papers that get reported on in the media are better quality than your average study. But tbh, that's partly because the bar is pretty low for what is average
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @joshcnicholas
I think it's more a case of type 1 errors than poor quality. They're more likely to be very positive, because that's what we want to read, but generally if it makes the news the actual components of the study aren't ~that~ bad
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @joshcnicholas
Like, I regularly see ridiculous positivity from one study that's opposed by a large body of literature, or has little theoretical backing, but I rarely see a headline about a study that did their stats entirely wrong in every way
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Because studies that find negative results are published less and virtually never make the news (unless the null finding is VERY contentious), but positive findings are pretty much automatically newsworthy and so they'd be covered more even if the positive finding is wrong
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.