True, however as I see it the key pt isn't the overall rate of ret's but the relative difference in ret rates b/w fields
-
-
Replying to @chrisdc77 @JoeHilgard
OK, that's indeed a difference. But I was mainly responding to idea that bad idea = retration. Done nowhere.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lakens @JoeHilgard
Indeed, I don't think anyone argues that is the case. More a matter of field-dependent differences in error tolerance.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't get why it shouldn't be retracted in your opinions? Or am I misreading?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @chrisdc77 and
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 &
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
I mean it should not be. We don't retract studies that turn out to be wrong. Science = progress, not an end result.
3 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @lakens
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lakens
knowing if smth is wrong or not is actually not nec for misconduct. One can always claim ignorance.
@richarddmorey covered my point.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @richarddmorey
So what should be the rule? I think if gou try to make one, it won't be easy. Should all authors agree?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
when you report methods you didn't follow youwill probably fall within any rule the journal/communities come up with
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.