If authors admit having used p-hacking/QRPs which invalidate conclusions of a published study, what should happen to the article?
reaped all & every reward 4 being bad. The last th left = dump a sorry not sorry on us.
-
-
.
@o_guest@TunnelOfFire@Research_Tim@annemscheel I sympathize with this, but I care much more about doing better now & in the future > -
than about achieving any ind of justice for past behavior for a few reasons. >
-
.
@o_guest@TunnelOfFire@Research_Tim@annemscheel First, I doubt that taking away rewards from people who admit past QRPs will > -
.
@o_guest@TunnelOfFire@Research_Tim@annemscheel accelerate correcting the literature and scientific advancement. Might slow it down. > -
.
@o_guest@TunnelOfFire@Research_Tim@annemscheel 2nd, I think that people who publicly correct the record, even after reaping rewards, > -
.
@o_guest@TunnelOfFire@Research_Tim@annemscheel are more admirable than people who recognize errors in their work but don't speak up. > -
.
@o_guest@TunnelOfFire@Research_Tim@annemscheel I think it's better to do that than to quietly begin to do better w/o acknowledging > -
.
@o_guest@TunnelOfFire@Research_Tim@annemscheel where one's work is flawed. - 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.
