FWIW there are a lot of decent people, e.g. basically anyone I know affiliated with (or who studied at) the Statistics Department there has been more cautious than these handful of authors (or actively speaking out against them)https://twitter.com/joftius/status/1261357438890057729 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet @Econ_Marshall
Joshua Loftus #peace Retweeted Andrea Montanari
It's like a collective prisoner's dilemma type of problem, if anyone "defects" and does something questionable and goes to the press without peer review they'll get tons of attention Meanwhile, the many more who are cautious receive little attentionhttps://twitter.com/Andrea__M/status/1252819493677445120 …
Joshua Loftus #peace added,
Andrea Montanari @Andrea__MNice thread by Will. I had same experience: I wrote to one of the authors on Fri evening, asking whether they could reject the following null hypothesis: The test has false positive rate 1.5% (which entirely explains the positives in the sample). No technical reply.@wfithian https://twitter.com/wfithian/status/1252692357788479488 …Show this thread2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
("Will" in the quoted tweet studied there, as did I, and I've spoken with others I know from there who were also shocked and concerned about this study--as buzzfeed reported there were a few who backed out of the study and someone who filed a whistleblower complaint)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
In my piece I talk about the scientists who backed out and the whistleblower. Still, it's fair to say that university's culture has enabled the shoddy work.
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.