It's interesting, I think, how different sciences apply different requirements for a paper to be retracted.
ok looking back I now see more tweets, so you mean perhaps it should be but pr and low bar mean it won't be &
-
-
I mean it should not be. We don't retract studies that turn out to be wrong. Science = progress, not an end result.
-
but it didn't turn out to be wrong in a nebulous way – it turned out to be p hacked. This is my issue. It's academic misconduct.
-
P-hacking and misconduct are not the same. You do 25 things wrong in your analysis you don't know about, and that is not misconduct
-
knowing if smth is wrong or not is actually not nec for misconduct. One can always claim ignorance.
@richarddmorey covered my point. -
So what should be the rule? I think if gou try to make one, it won't be easy. Should all authors agree?
-
when you report methods you didn't follow youwill probably fall within any rule the journal/communities come up with
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
that's kind of even more depressing about state of field. The mess can't even be cleaned up to ppls standards
-
for fear of further egg on face etc etc.
-
It's still real data. Best-case scenario would be a mega-correction fully detailing sample process & all DVs.
-
is science more about correct data or correct interpretation, theory, etc?
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.
