This is not about the flawed incentives structure, publication bias and the rest. I'm just talking about pretty clear errors in published research that are way more common than a lot of people imagine
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
That false under misleading interpretation.
End of conversation
-
-
-
Probably the impact factor of the journal also increases along side with rarity
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I’d add several things between study design and stat analysis. Data quality is tricky.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Much better!
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
Hmmm id be tempted to swap bad study design and misinterpretation around..... I mean where is your evidence for this



Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Did you ever see this?https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691612459519 …
-
(not the same, but in a similar vein!)
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.