A 600-word long paper by Wansink gets a "Retract and Replace". Explaining all the errors required almost 800 words. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2654849 …pic.twitter.com/B7TlDp2Tw8
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Also: "errors were recently discovered [...] following a letter we received from a reader on February 12, 2017." No credit to the reader?!
I highly doubt the authors would have done anything unless I contacted the editor.
The reader might be @eric_robinson_ who is credited at the bottom of this post: http://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2017/02/a-different-set-of-problems-in-article.html …
It feels weird to me that they don't acknowledge in name explicitly the "reader" — seems disingenuous, anti-the -ethos-of-science, closed.
I am not under the impression that Wansink is very invested in the ethos of scientific practice.
The journal might be.
They didn't even spot the inconsistency between the table and the text...
I think these numbers are actually okay, there is some overlap between the columns.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.