Archives


Your Favorite Journal Does Not Publish “Only the Highest Quality Scientific Research”

In a recent opinion piece for Slate, the ubiquitous Andrew Gelman took the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) to task for claiming that it “only publishes the highest quality scientific research.” As a result, PNAS no longer…

Read More

Abandon Statistical Significance?

[From the abstract of a recent working paper by Blakeley McShane, David Gal, Andrew Gelman, Christian Robert, and Jennifer Tackett.] “In science publishing and many areas of research, the status quo is a lexicographic decision rule in which any result is first  required to have…

Read More

A Pop Quiz on Significant Effects with Small Sample Sizes

QUICK: Does finding a significant effect when the sample size is small make it more likely that the effects are real and important?  Or less? James Heckman, Nobel Prize winning economist, says more: “Also holding back progress are those who…

Read More

Andrew Gelman Asks, Does Criticizing Bad Research Do More Harm Than Good?

In a recent post at his blogsite, Statistical Modeling, Causal inference, and Social Science, Andrew Gelman asks whether his recent criticisms on statistical grounds of a prominent researcher’s experiments on healthy eating are doing more harm than good. The researcher, Brian Wansink, is John…

Read More

Why Are Replications Hot in Psychology But Not So Much in Economics?

In a recent blog at Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science, ANDREW GELMAN asks the question: “Why is so much of the discussion about psychology research? Why not economics, which is more controversial and gets more space in the news media? Or medicine,…

Read More

“Methodological Terrorism”: The Battle is Joined

ANDREW GELMAN has a new blog in which he takes on SUSAN FISKE and her labelling of (some) social media critics of psychological research as “methodological terrorists.”  The blog is a must read for at least two reasons.  First, Gelman…

Read More

Tales from the (Economics) Crypt

Recently, ANDREW GELMAN blogged about a communication he received from Per Pettersson-Lidbom, an economist at Stockholm University. Petterson shared three stories of “scientific fraud” in papers published in top economics journals.  Gelman writes, “… I’m sharing Pettersson’s stories, neither endorsing nor disputing their particulars but…

Read More

BOB REED: On Andrew Gelman, Retractions, and the Supply and Demand for Data Transparency

In a recent interview on Retraction Watch, Andrew Gelman reveals that what keeps him up at night isn’t scientific fraud, it’s “the sheer number of unreliable studies — uncorrected, unretracted — that have littered the literature.”  He then goes on…

Read More

Failed Replications: Crisis? Or Proof that Science is Working?

This item is a twofer.  In a New York Times op-ed piece, LISA FELDMAN BARRETT argues that failed replications are exactly what you should expect when science is doing its job.  Rather than a cause of concern, it is proof…

Read More