Jona Sassenhagen writes:
Here is a paper ***, in case you, errrrr, have run out of other things to blog about …
I took a look and replied:
Wow—what a horrible paper. Really ignorant. Probably best for me to just ignore it!
Jona Sassenhagen writes:
Here is a paper ***, in case you, errrrr, have run out of other things to blog about …
I took a look and replied:
Wow—what a horrible paper. Really ignorant. Probably best for me to just ignore it!
At least tell us which Journal. :)
Rahul:
Ha! I think the paper is terrible but I do not feel like putting in the effort to identify exactly where are the mistakes. So it would be inappropriate for me to offer any clues about it. I’ll just say that it was a methods paper; my problems with it were along the lines of statistical theory, nothing to do with garden of forking paths or p-values or any of that stuff.
I’ll bet it’s the paper in SCIENCE by…, er no wait, more likely the one in Nature from Volume… no, no, actually that one in JAMA is almost certainly… er, unless of course it’s the piece in Social Psychology last month on… or, maybe that Lancet study of… ohhh n-n-n-nevermind.
C’mon! It’s obviously that new PPNAS paper… no, hold on… it’s a hot-off-the-presses paper in Psych Science… or… erm…