OK. So we retract 5.000.000 papers where the Type 1 error rate was not controlled. And then? Start anew?
-
-
Sounds good to me! I'm glad we're agreed on that :)
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @richarddmorey @o_guest
I'm just glad you care so much about Type 1 error rates :)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @lakens @richarddmorey
LOL how did we go from a single person admitting they are wrong in a single pub to 5,000,000 papers being retracted?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @richarddmorey
Almost everything that is not pre-registered is p-hacked to some extent.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
I'd say 'some' is crucial word here. Not sure it always matters. Also, what's evidence for this statement?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Do you know anybody who plans and executes their entire analysis plan before collecting the data?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EJWagenmakers @lakens and
How do you execute your analysis before collecting data? :)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sampendu @EJWagenmakers and
But seriously: yes I have seen people do exactly the expmt & analysis they planned to do.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sampendu @EJWagenmakers and
the grey area of p-hacking is outliers. Sometime hard to define these a priori
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
but methods section can still be honest!
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @JamesKilner and
Yes. Honest methods is really the first step. But it's dis-incentivized :/
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.