There was more, but I forget. I talked to a few people about this at the time, and then forgot about it - it didn't matter. An anonymous crackpot looking at dog balls partially fabricating their data (what it seemed like) is of no practical importance to me whatsoever.
-
Show this thread
-
My money was on "some screwball who collected twenty hours of scruffy numbers, and then multiplied every number by 50 and said they planned it". I did NOT know it was entirely fake. Just pretty obviously not real.
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likesShow this thread -
So, why say nothing? Because I have no stake at all in un-gendering performative dog humping whatsisnames. I want to work on problems that *hurt people*, not *mildly inconvenience dogs*. I feel pretty silly now it's become important in retrospect. Should have written something.
1 reply 0 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
But, a final point: if you're looking for this level of detail in peer review - forget it. It's one thing to claim peer review is negligent because the ideas involved are ridiculous, but another to claim you snuck past a bunch of fake statistics.pic.twitter.com/r32SdMXdnA
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
You mean *descriptive* statistics. There are no test statistics, which is what people will probably think the above means. NO-ONE ANYWHERE does review like the above. Actually, in many ways, this Dog Park has LESS glaring errors than some Wansink papers.
1 reply 0 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
Anyway, I'm not going to have some tiresome point about this issue like everyone else is right now. I just thought you'd find this interesting.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Paper: http://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1475346 … Article: https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ …
2 replies 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
Old Nick
@sTeamTraen, did we talk about this at the time? I'm trying to reconstruct my memories on this one, didn't really take notes.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @jamesheathers @sTeamTraen
There was skeptical coverage back in July:https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11158
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @sTeamTraen
Yeah, I saw it at the time.
@RealPeerReview went nanners on it too. But that ain't numbers, it's more "are we really studying the feminism of dog bollocks now?" Me, I'll stick with numbers.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yes, the sequence you just tweeted is (obviously) way more serious/sophisticated than 99.9% of the reactions.
-
-
Think about it this way: one good solid unfuckwithable request for all 1000 hours of dog bollocks data during review could have stopped this farrago of arse stone dead.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I'm not sure. Categorical data for 1 or 2 variables is pretty easy to bash together in Excel in half an hour, when there's no need for SDs or Cronbach alphas to match.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 7 more 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.