People often say that they've "done their research" on a topic. For some context, I read about 5 scientific papers a day, maybe 1,500 a year, and I can count on my fingers the number of things I've genuinely done my research on
-
-
so SPSS has a module for propensity score matching now? I'm not sure whether that's good or bad. My first reaction was oh gawd, some SPSS users will torture it until it confesses their preconceived hypothesus.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Isn't it weird that the Elgazzar paper is still being referenced?https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452318621000350?via%3Dihub#bib0021 …
-
Yes. I might do a thread on that review later
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Props for not dropping ones behind a paywall. Anyway I hope everyone knows about scihub.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Those papers are limy nightmare: shoddy science mixed with massive death. How does your reading of papers depend on the quality of the journal? When I was an engineer, I focused on the gold standard in my field known as the red rag.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to do the minimum amount of research to "confirm" your already made up mind.
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.