4 ms·
As a guy who does a lot of scientific data analysis and plotting, I'm surprised that no one brought up the obvious explanation; in the general scrum of final ma
by maxander 8y ago
As a guy who does a lot of scientific data analysis and plotting, I'm surprised that no one brought up the obvious explanation; in the general scrum of final manuscript preparation, the data analysis guy mistakenly made a plot with the same data replicated several times, but shifted each time so that the plot looked plausible at first pass. It would require a lot of things to go wrong at once, sure... but with experience, you learn to count on a lot of things going wrong at once, especially just before something like a manuscript submission. :)
But that the authors, who presumably could check the raw data the plot is coming from, didn't immediately come back with this explanation, makes it sound much more likely that this is just fraud. Oh well.
- DoctorOetker 8y agoyour mixup does not make any sense: look at the 2 traces in question, on the left half both traces seem like a simple small vertical shift of the other, but in the right half of the same plot one plateaus earlier than the other, both plateauing at the same height. the conclusion is unmistakable: either the data is real and unexplained (or at least no agreement on any explanation yet) or the data was doctored by summing vertically displaced noise with horizontally displaced sigmoid.