I didn’t “misrepresent” you, Jesse. The discussion was about the significant corrections to Lisa Litmann’s ROGD study, & my blog argues that you should make it clear to your readers that that study doesn’t validate “ROGD”.https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1424087288351440898 …
-
-
Yes I saw that! Also thanks for your stance on this topic and correcting that SBM article in spite of the backlash. I was disheartened when I saw the book review go up as I've followed SBM for a while, and I had hoped it didn't reflect a general position of the team.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I got ‘Singaled’ as you put it when I initially called the major correction that completely undermined the ROGD study a ‘retraction’. He sure spends a lot of time focusing on these sorts of minor points, but never addressing the major problems… I wonder why
-
My paper "aliens definitely real" has been corrected to "accounts from people who claim to have seen aliens, I have no evidence of aliens", but, crucially it was NOT retracted, I just had to rewrite everything except the methods section,
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.