2 ms·
> The Journal's response to their request was 'Who cares?', and this is the right answer. That's what they should have said to the first paper, but since they
by WillPostForFood 7y ago
> The Journal's response to their request was 'Who cares?', and this is the right answer.
That's what they should have said to the first paper, but since they decided to publish it they can no longer say "who cares" to the correction. They should either retract the original, or publish this.
- bilbo0s 7y agoProblem is it's not a "correction". There was nothing really there in the first place, which is what the first paper said to anyone with a modicum of mathematical knowledge. It's like any other paper that reports a statistically non significant result. The appropriate response is, "Well, OK. Sure, whatever." But yeah, we're not gonna take up space from something else that may be important, just to go back and forth over this statistically non significant result. You let them do that in your journal that crap will go on forever and you'll never have space for anything substantive. I'm sure liberal and conservative political types must have some other place they can do that at. If you have a new result in some new area, that's one thing. But if all you have is the exact same result saying that the old non significant result is, um, non significant? I mean, I gotta agree with HN User "Gatsky". "Who cares?" But I'm a research scientist by training and a stickler for protocol. So it's likely my age is showing and the rest of the world wants to loosen up these days? I'm just the old man yelling at the liberal and conservative kids to get off my lawn.
- Para2016 7y agoI care. I bet you still believe Wakefield was right..