@ImHardcory @EPoe187 Can you run some more participants on this part of the study? This p value is way too suspicious. Just add another 300 and update results.pic.twitter.com/d3lTlR7ekm
Why not just tell the reviewers that you had doubts about this one result and decided to add a bit more data, leaving nothing else changed about it? If you're right, then all that will change is a few numbers will look not suspicious.
-
-
I don't agree. Right now, that finding is essentially uninterpretable due to low statistical certainty and provides an easy attack point for critics (there will be a lot of those!). 300 participants can't cost that much, no?
-
Tweet unavailable
-
These kinds of multi-study papers often rely on cherry picked studies that worked (Bem being the master of this). So while the Bayesian angle makes sense, it is not strong given this typical publishing pattern. Hence, makes sense to boost even the weakest study to avoid doubts.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Sure, but readers will not take so much notice of that. If you want to publish counter-narrative findings, your evidence must really be spotless. And even then, you know critics will find something (remember the 2:1 female favored hiring study?).
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.