A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers
1–10 of 105 posts
Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers
#2I imagine Wansink does get it. Now that he's outed, he either trolling for fun, or hoping the blasé approach is the one that quiets all the fuss the fastest.
Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers
#3I imagine Wansink does get it. Now that he's outed, he either trolling for fun, or hoping the blasé approach is the one that quiets all the fuss the fastest.
I wouldn't be certain. A lot of researchers really are clueless about anything to do with statistics.
It takes much more work/time to do real research, so the funding system has actually been selecting for people who can remain ignorant (so it is not fraud) and just produce p-hacked "results". In many areas, this has been going on for multiple generations now and you are trained to do it as a grad student.
Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers
#4I still don't understand: Is there any good reason that raw data should not be published along with each paper?
Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers
#5I still don't understand: Is there any good reason that raw data should not be published along with each paper?
> I still don't understand: Is there any good reason that raw data should not be published along with each paper?
Confidentiality? What if correlations give away subjects' identities?
Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers
#6I still don't understand: Is there any good reason that raw data should not be published along with each paper?
> I still don't understand: Is there any good reason that raw data should not be published along with each paper? Confidentiality? What if correlations give away subjects' identities?
Does a substantial portion of the subjects actually care about this?
Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I still don't understand: Is there any good reason that raw data should not be published along with each paper? Confidentiality? What if correlations give away subjects' identities?
Does a substantial portion of the subjects actually care about this?
> Does a substantial portion of the subjects actually care about this?
I don't think that's how laws or ethics rules work, for one. And I wasn't talking about a particular experiment, for two.
Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I still don't understand: Is there any good reason that raw data should not be published along with each paper? Confidentiality? What if correlations give away subjects' identities?
Does a substantial portion of the subjects actually care about this?
Why should it only matter if a substantial number of subjects care about confidentiality?
The danger for some people is death or worse. Why are you dismissing that risk?
Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does a substantial portion of the subjects actually care about this?
Why should it only matter if a substantial number of subjects care about confidentiality? The danger for some people is death or worse. Why are you dismissing that risk?
you got the question backwards.
if enough subjects don't care about confidentiality you could use only them and publish the data.
Re: A researcher's response to people pointing out 150 errors in four of his papers
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does a substantial portion of the subjects actually care about this?
> Does a substantial portion of the subjects actually care about this? I don't think that's how laws or ethics rules work, for one. And I wasn't talking about a particular experiment, for two.
I've found I'm exceptional in being at all concerned about privacy. I think that if you asked, most people would only want minimal effort put towards confidentiality, especially since the trade-off is that other researchers won't be able to double check the analysis.