4 ms·
Completely agree with you that the study is trash, however ... >but an unimportant journal in psychology. This is untrue. It's comically untrue. I was doing
by omginternets 7y ago
Completely agree with you that the study is trash, however ...
>but an unimportant journal in psychology.
This is untrue. It's comically untrue.
I was doing my PhD in cogsci when this came out and everybody was surprised that PNAS would publish such a bad study, given that we were more used to seeing things like this: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/5/1672.full.pdf https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/5/1672.full.pdf and this https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/2/619.full.pdf https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/2/619.full.pdf.
PNAS has an _excellent_ reputation in psychology, especially in the psychophysics and EEG/MEG crowd.
- conistonwater 7y agoPNAS does this sort of thing often enough, it doesn't really deserve its positive reputation (if any): https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/?s=pnas https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/?s=pnas
- disgruntledphd2 7y agoAdam Kramer has a PhD in psychology, for what it's worth.
- datashow 7y agoThanks. Good to know.
- datashow 7y agocognitive science is a unique field, it is somewhat related to psychology, but definitely not a subfield of psychology.