@paulg Yep. Huge issue. This is why we backed @StdrdAnalytics
Of 100 studies published in 3 leading psychology journals, only 35 were reproducible.http://goo.gl/ihcgB6
-
-
-
@alexiskold@paulg@StdrdAnalytics I'd be interested in chatting with them about@SHARE_research
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@paulg and "negative citations" are fairly rare too... http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/21/1502280112.abstract …Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@paulg "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 …Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@paulg that's a better success rate than startup's 5 year Survival rate :-)Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@paulg Humanity is maddeningly indeterminate.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@paulg a large portion were "repeatable" with a lesser effect. title makes it seem like science is brokenThanks. 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.