It sounds like the only reasonable course of action for @NEJM at this point is to place a notification of concern on the paper and investigate themselves
-
-
You can complain about the methodology. But the article you shared and the partial mail that you shared painted the picture of Ludwigsson finding the anomaly and then deciding to bury it Instead the mail shows that he started to investigate it to find a cause
-
Why would you even send the mail if your intent was to not care about it? It makes no sense to me. And the fact that Science Magazine changed their article after publishing it without telling anyone indicates to me that they know they did send out the wrong message to
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
If the data is originally in age groups and he pooled it to smooth things over it is a clear QRP. There is no excuse for such poor research methods in 2020.
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.