Yes, it should be corrected. That’s very important. Still, the overall method where it’s up to the author to pool ages as they see fit, rather than following some fixed standard set out before analysis, and the poor review process is the real story. >
-
-
Replying to @RickCarlsson @NDLoubere and
I reckon the real story is that this sort of shoddy study with selective research is so common. The weirdest part about this whole argument is that it's basically reinforced my initial comment - that it sounds like p hacking - but because p hacking is ubiquitous...
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @RickCarlsson and
Would you still consider it p-hacking if the comparison dates were requested by the reviewer as is claimed? If that claim is true then all of the data for those dates was published from the start
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @JacobGudiol @RickCarlsson and
I'm not sure a bad reviewer makes much of a difference? It's super easy to include stuff in supplements, the fact that none of this is uncommon is also a problem
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @RickCarlsson and
I have very little experience with submitting. I do however read a lot of studies since that is more or less my job. I can't remember reading supplements where there was data included not even mentioned in the main article and from entirely different dates
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @JacobGudiol @GidMK and
Common to “hide” stuff in supplements, but you are def expected to catalog everything at least there, including weird data that you decided not to use. “We determined that Helmut had sometimes walked into laser during experiment — runs containing ‘Helmut Blips’ were not used.”
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @magnusnordborg @JacobGudiol and
It’s of course especially important to be open about any data that looks concerning even if you think you have a solid explanation. As the last year has made abundantly clear, good scientists spend most of their time trying to prove themselves wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @magnusnordborg @GidMK and
I've found a lot of hidden stuff. Pre-registered primary outcomes only mentioned there and similar things. I do however think that is a bit of a different situation to what I pointed out above But I do agree on more data being better here. And I think I would have included it
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @JacobGudiol @magnusnordborg and
But I don't see it as a given considering what I pointed out above. And I don't think it is enough to assume some deceiving agenda based only on what we know. It could be possible but so could other explanations
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @JacobGudiol @magnusnordborg and
P-hacking doesn't necessarily imply a deceptive agenda, that's my point. It can just be poor research practices
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes
I would add that it is understandable that people would leap to deceptive explanations after the author burned all scientific credibility to the ground with the Great Barrington Declaration
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @JacobGudiol and
More than that. In one ethics request he asked for rapid approval because the study was needed for people making policy decisions. He reconfirmed this approach again in a Newsweek article today (which completely ignores the actual allegations)https://www.newsweek.com/swedish-professor-who-quit-covid-research-over-backlash-stands-school-studys-findings-1573452 …
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @DavidSteadson @GidMK and
"Research findings, like mine, are needed for politicians and public health officials to make informed decisions. When researchers stop presenting certain results...we tend to make incorrect decisions." Oh, the irony.
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likes - Show replies
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.