Nils Kappelmann

A bit ironic that they write "While this might suggest a synergistic effect between spin and citation biases [...], this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.50), likely due to the small sample size.". Isn't this a spin by itself?

I'd say it's a spin if all results are interpreted in one direction or there is at least a systematic interpretational imbalance. As long as such interpretations serve valid discussion, they are important to qualify results though. Difficult balance in any case

Here we're describing a pattern in our data which is consistent with a similar pattern observed in a previous larger analysis of citations in a different literature. (1/3)

I think this is different to over-selling new findings don't closely match previous findings (but then I guess I would say that!) (2/3)

Similarly, I think describing the large P-value as potentially due to low power is justified (or at least justifiable) here, for similar reasons. (3/3)

Although with hindsight the wording is unfortunate, or doesn't provide a full explanation, but the format meant we had to be VERY concise! (4/3)

Hmm. If for a given test you would believe only positive results and dismiss negative results as "likely due to the small N", maybe better not to perform this test in the first place? (1/3)

I agree it's not clear from the text that the intention is to support a previous finding with a bigger N, but if this is the case maybe the problem is not the small N but the inadequacy of NHST to answer such questions? (2/3)

Shocking but drugs are big business these companies have millions maybe billions riding on certain drug trials! There is a reason GSK, Pfizer, shire etc are some of the biggest most profitable companies in the world! they should only be trialled by an independent research body?

If you look closer at what is done, the gold standard used is the FDA review of the complete reports provided by the sponsor. The claimed spin/biasing occurs in "scientific publications" with academic lead authors. The latter is a nonsense game played by academics for money+fame.

I’m not sure it’s that harsh - the fundemental problem is that scientists aren’t currently incentivised to be right, just to publish, get grants etc.

That’s a great leveller in the NHS people I’ve come into contact doing research are passionate about finding the truth-be that positive or negative about a given intervention/phenomenon. I’m sure it’s not all roses here as well research is a ‘business’ and super competitive.

Don’t get me wrong: scientists in academia want to find the truth too - that’s why nearly everyone goes into science - but current incentives shape behaviour (mostly unconsciously) in ways that aren’t good for science.

Great to get opinions on this in a constructive way I’m a relative novice in research seeing things from my little world so good to get as many opinions as possible and try stay open.

This graph is total #academiagoals

Wait maybe it's not a graph? Is it an infographic? What do I call this beautiful creature?!?!