If authors admit having used p-hacking/QRPs which invalidate conclusions of a published study, what should happen to the article?
-
-
so u face to face admit this at a conf with an audience & think its ok to leave as foundational pub in the lit?
-
get out of science – haha
-
last tweets are facetious questions/jocular remarks but have a serious core. What's the point of pubs if not some
-
attempt at "what we think is right"
-
have no evidence for this but I think most p-hackers really believe theyre right/effect is true even if methods dodgy
-
no evidence either than my own exp in labs and not sure on this point. Have seem ppl go either way for sure.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's nuts! Wrong in omission or commission?
-
bits of both
-
Ugh. Really? How do they sleep at night?
-
I would assume well, like many prolific such types they are at very prestigious places
-
But my highest level concern is with the record. We need to incentivize truth telling.
-
Yes–the record itself is the truth tho, not whether or not authors put it on their site.
-
I agree. Right now retraction is a career-busting event, but I'd like the norms to change
- 12 more replies
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.
