3 ms·
I am dumbfounded that respectable journals still don't regularly engage in data escrow with third party adjudication precisely for this reason. A credible quest
by justinjlynn 7y ago
I am dumbfounded that respectable journals still don't regularly engage in data escrow with third party adjudication precisely for this reason. A credible question about the veracity or interpretation of the data, in terms of objectively presented statistical heuristics, should automatically grant confidential data access for further peer review. This could be accomplished easily with threshold-type cryptographic tools, even amongst hierarchies of authors. These studies are the basis of our science and are its direct credibility. It's absurd we don't take precautions against the malefactors who would pervert it.
- dekhn 7y agoeven without any of the overly complicated tech you describe, some journals maintain statisticians on staff who evaluate everything in every paper and then help correct errors before publication. My stats prof, Stan Glantz did this for a major cardiology journal. He said (and I agree, having reviewed plenty of papers myself) that statistical errors that affect the conclusion of the paper were found in the majority of papers.
- justinjlynn 7y ago> overly complicated tech It solves a problem, just like any other engineering solution. There are trade-offs involved like always. Obviously you understand the problem I'm trying to solve, since you're passing judgement on my suggestion - do you have a better one? Even given all of your verbiage, I'm afraid I couldn't devine one.