Because it is. Publication bias was long ago labelled malpractice (Sterling, 1959). Any journal editor who rejects a paper b/c of the main results (as opposed to +ve controls or quality checks) is committing misconduct.https://twitter.com/MarcusMunafo/status/932956072339496960 …
-
-
Replying to @chrisdc77 @eplebel
Disagree. Great study showing eating Funyuns doesn’t cure cancer is not worth publishing bc no reason to think it would. But if it shows, in a demonstrably *replicable* way, that it does cure cancer it should be published, as it would be a game changer.
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Disastrous. Suppose 1000 researchers (for some reason) decide to study curative properties of Funyuns. 950 find nothing & get rejected. 50 show +ve effects by chance & are pub'd. 50 studies now meet your condition for replicability & we decide Funyuns cure cancer.
3 replies 6 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @eplebel
Imagine someone making a career identifying 1,000 different ordinary stimuli that don’t cure cancer and publishing each one in JAMA. Absurd.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
-
Gentleman, I give you this one I prepared earlier http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/prospecting-for-kryptonite-value-of.html …. Don't buy
@jpsimmon idea of weird person doing endless well-designed studies on implausible associations - why would they?3 replies 2 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @deevybee @chrisdc77 and
I could be completely off base here but isn't the whole tabloid "science" reporting on coffee/chocolate/wine does/doesn't cause/cure cancer, exactly that type of research?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
So not a single person or lab doing it, but certainly a thing that occurs between medical science and medical pop/tabloid science.
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.