yxwvut t1_j97u1vl wrote
Reply to comment by TogepiMain in Review found ‘falsified data’ in Stanford President’s research, colleagues allege by ScoMoTrudeauApricot
Are you familiar with p-hacking, or what some statisticians call the “garden of forked paths”? There are so many researcher degrees of freedom that go unreported and unconsidered. So much of academia is essentially encouraged to go on fishing expeditions until their data turns up something “significant”, and they probably don’t even have the statistics training to realize they’re doing unsound analysis.
TogepiMain t1_j984icn wrote
https://www.cos.io/initiatives/prereg
Pre register your paper! Calling your shot in science, so hot right now.
Seriously, millions and millions of dollars are wasted every year on repeated dead ends. Your paper showing hoe the thing you did didn't work? It is just as valuable. Sharing your mistakes is incredibly brave, and incredibly important. Every scientist that comes after you is able to reach further because you showed them where not to stray from the path.
yxwvut t1_j986j0k wrote
Preregistration is great but even pre-registering isn’t a panacea. Pre-registered papers can still be silently dropped from publication so the macro paper-generating process still has an over-abundance of false positives if the negatives are dropped, and there can still be ambiguities in the analysis protocol where researchers can still impart influence over the results.
TogepiMain t1_j9a6btk wrote
True. But even if the paper isn't published the timestamp of the hypothesis is there
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments