Dan Goodman on Nostr: npub17nd8s…s77sr ah thanks, somehow my brain had skipped over that link! Having ...
npub17nd8sc5pg42rgsk56gja0yc0jvn2hu9j05jh097gnut33dl73hhqls77sr (npub17nd…77sr) ah thanks, somehow my brain had skipped over that link!
Having read the article I stand by my previous comment. It's not that checking the data and stats is a bad thing, it's just that journals aren't the right people to do it. It's something that should be done by colleagues and potentially a university statistical service before publication, and by scientists with an interest in finding holes in the reasoning who have full access to the raw data post publication. If you do it adversarially pre publication you introduce a massive incentive to cheat and to make it hard to detect the fraud. Journal organised peer review is simply bad for science.
Having read the article I stand by my previous comment. It's not that checking the data and stats is a bad thing, it's just that journals aren't the right people to do it. It's something that should be done by colleagues and potentially a university statistical service before publication, and by scientists with an interest in finding holes in the reasoning who have full access to the raw data post publication. If you do it adversarially pre publication you introduce a massive incentive to cheat and to make it hard to detect the fraud. Journal organised peer review is simply bad for science.