3 ms·
The blog post does not include the original analysis. You can find the full study here: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903856116 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.190
by gillesjacobs 7y ago
The blog post does not include the original analysis. You can find the full study here: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903856116 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903856116
PNAS is a highly regarded and high impact journal with stringent peer review. Scepticism is always a must in sociology. However, it is poor form to outright dismiss the findings as "poor statistics" without argument or reference to the source.
- vikramkr 7y agoI've seen some pretty iffy articles on molecular biology/micro biology etc published in nature (not scientific reports) science cell. They were studies that were technically OK, but made some excessively bad claims and questionable methodological choices (eg left out performing a validation step that's cheap and the next step in the research, curiously resigning that step for anyone who would try and replicate the study). Prestige of the paper only says standards are higher, not that any given paper is great, and especially not that the conclusions are great.