(scheduled to appear in a few months, of course). I think you’ll like it. Or hate it. Depending on who you are.
Thomas Leeper points me to Diederik Stapel’s memoir, “Faking Science: A True Story of Academic Fraud,” translated by Nick Brown and available online for free download.
Richard Morey writes: On the tail of our previous paper about confidence intervals, showing that researchers tend to misunderstand the inferences one can draw from CIs, we [Morey, Rink Hoekstra, Jeffrey Rouder, Michael Lee, and EJ Wagenmakers] have another paper that we have just submitted which talks about the theory underlying inference by CIs. Our […]
One thing we’ve been discussing a lot lately is the discomfort many people—many researchers—feel about uncertainty. This was particularly notable in the reaction of psychologists Jessica Tracy and Alec Beall to our “garden of forking paths” paper, but really we see it all over: people find some pattern in their data and they don’t even […]
A journalist writes in with a question: This study on [sexy topic] is getting a lot of attention, and I wanted to see if you had a few minutes to look it over for me . . . Basically, I am somewhat skeptical of [sexy subject area] explanations of complex behavior, and in this case […]
On 12 Aug I sent the following message to Michael Link, president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. (I could not find Link’s email on the AAPOR webpage but I did some googling and found an email address for him at nielsen.com.): Dear Dr. Link:A colleague pointed me to a statement released under your […]
I think most of you understand this one already but there still seems to be some confusion on how plagiarism works, so here goes . . .
I happened to come across a post from 2011 about some work of Roland Fryer, a prominent economist who works in education research. In an article, Fryer made the offhand remark that “test scores have been largely constant over the past thirty years,” a claim that was completely contradicted by one of the graphs in […]
More details on the Matthew Whitaker case from Brian Gratton and from Rick Shenkman. Shenkman even goes to the trouble of interviewing some of the people involved. It’s not pretty.
Completely uncritical press coverage of a speculative analysis. But, hey, it was published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PPNAS)! What could possibly go wrong? Here’s what Erik Larsen writes: In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, People search for meaning when they approach a […]