Above is the title of an email I received from Marcel van Assen. We were having a discussion of PPNAS papers—I was relating my frustration about Case and Deaton’s response to my letter with Auerbach on age adjustment in mortality trends—and Assen wrote:
We also commented on a paper in PNAS. The original paper was by Fanelli & Ioannidis on “US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research.”
Their analyses smelled, with a rather obscure “to the power .25” of effect size. We re-analyzed their data in a more obvious way, and found nothing.
We were also amazed that the original paper’s authors waved away our re-analyses.
The most interesting PNAS article I [Assen] read last years is the one with Riling as one of the authors, arguing that men with bigger balls take less care of their children than men with smaller balls (yes, I mean testicles).
It had some p-values very close to .05. At that time I requested their data. I got the data, together with some requests not so share them. I did not follow upon this paper… Recently, I noticed Riling is also the author of at least one of the neuropsychology papers with huge correlations between a behavioral measure and neural activity.
OK, and here’s the promised cat picture: