3 ms·

It isn't hateful if it's true. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095578/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095578/ And if it's true it

• gilrain 6y ago
  Oops, you "forgot" this part of the study: >Notice of republication >After publication of this article [1], questions were raised that prompted the journal to conduct a post-publication reassessment of the article, involving senior members of the journal’s editorial team, two Academic Editors, a statistics reviewer, and an external expert reviewer.
  • 0xy 6y ago
    The reassessment doesn't invalidate the original study at all.
• throwaway33339 6y ago
  This is probably the time to plug this wonderful extension [0] that directly warns you, whenever a link to a scholarly article is posted, that said article has had comments on its PubPeer entry. For those who don't know, PubPeer was designed as a kind of forum where people can discuss articles after they're published (with or without a pseudonym). Of course, it almost instantly turned into a place for anonymous whistleblowing and call-outs for fraud, replication failure, etc. So while it's not an absolute rule, an article having one comment or two on PubPeer is usually a middling red flag for that article being generally dubious. The reason I'm talking about all this is that the parent's link has twenty-five (25) comments on PubPeer. See for yourself, read the discussion and make of that what you will. [0] https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/pubpeer/ https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/pubpeer/