SCIENCE GANG FIGHT I've pretty closely read both papers from a conf talk on empirical engineering, and now I gotta read the rebuttal super closely, toohttps://twitter.com/vlfilkov/status/1196714347403202560 …
-
-
So they recognized the issues "very soon", but according to the date from the footnote, this was well after I wrote a blog post that got > 1M hits pointing out the issues. But it's technically true they were "the first to correct our work" since I didn't submit a corrected paper!
-
(their footnote dates their correction to sometime in 2015, my blog post was was November 2014). Many of their defenses rely on sleight of hand to make technically correct but actually totally bogus statements. It's like reading a defense from the "power poses" authors.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Is it conceivable this could be a language issue, e.g. there may be an idiom in the authors' native language(s) with a similar logical structure where it means something more like "it was our first priority to..."? (Yes that's not incredibly logical, but many idioms aren't.)
-
Possibly, but then I don't think it makes sense for them to call the criticism a "
#miss" for that reason. I suspect they meant something like "we fixed this before Emery Berger's paper was published", but that would still be months after I published my criticism. - 3 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.