Oh dear. Should have been immediately obvious, within seconds, that something along these lines, not the hoax, would be correct methodology.https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/868326710915280898 …
Correct methodology: a) Random selection of articles from random selection of gender studies journals; b) You add your hoax articles;
-
-
c) You send each article out to a suitably qualified reviewers in gender studies; d) Reviewers score articles on various dimensions;
-
e) Are there statistically significant differences between scores for genuine & hoax articles; f) You have to control for:
-
a) previous familiarity with article; b) possibility of googling; c) systematic differences between scoring patterns of reviewers;
-
Controlling isn't easy, maybe impossible, but that's how you test the P&L hypothesis. Not by writing one hoax article. Doesn't work.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nice idea. But ppl could google the papers, and you'd have to test it on 'experts'.
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.