i bet i review more experiments in month than most academics do in in a year
-
Show this thread
-
i further bet the experiments are far, far more rigorous i should know, having built the proximal instrumentation
2 replies 0 retweets 57 likesShow this thread -
every day i marvel at how far ahead of the academy we are in industry and no one will ever know because people yell at us about PRIVACY and IRB when we consider publishing the results
1 reply 0 retweets 77 likesShow this thread -
never occurred to me that the academy is actually a partial monopoly on social knowledge generation and now I'm angry about that massive regulatory moats everywhere absolute bullshit
10 replies 7 retweets 113 likesShow this thread -
i can tell you our firm's corresponding figure does not have this shape (i have seen it) crazy how "maintaining profitability" is a forcing function for getting the Right answer to thingspic.twitter.com/96QkFuOMVY
6 replies 3 retweets 100 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @eigenrobot
isn't bimodality expected here? there's selection, |z-values | < 1.96 would usually not be considered publishable
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
-
-
Replying to @eigenrobot
not that I'm disagreeing with your bigger point but this isn't strong evidence for it anyone can see there's underpublication of null results, but most interesting results are significant anyway and academic publishing's job kinda of is enforcing this sort of bimodality
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
be a shame if tenure incentives led to publication bias and p-hacking led to entire fields being discredited
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.