33 ms·
At a minimum, one thing that we can hopefully convince you of is that our research methodology as designed is reasonably conceptually sound. If we're wrong in o
by davidsolomon 6y ago
At a minimum, one thing that we can hopefully convince you of is that our research methodology as designed is reasonably conceptually sound. If we're wrong in our research design, that's a problem regardless of anything else. But if our identification strategy is at least defensible if actually implemented correctly, that's a good start.
Having skeptical priors about research in general, whether incentives, error rates, or whatnot, is totally fair.
- wegs 6y agoIt is a good start! I look at the first paper as generating a hypothesis. That's the first step in any scientific process. A few replications later, we've got a theory, and then a few more later, a fact. The first papers are as important as the rest of that pipeline. What causes outright harm is: 1) Papers with poor methodology; 2) Authors overselling their results; or just as often 3) Readers / reporters giving too much confidence in preliminary results To be clear, I was calling em500 on #3, not the authors on #1 or #2. On a skim, I don't see obvious problems (but, then, I wouldn't expect to find them; most require a deep read). It's published in an open access venue, which is always a good sign. It also helps that you're from BC, which for the most part, (still) has a pretty good reputation for scientific integrity (there's been a rapid decline in scientific integrity over the past two decades, and that's hit the institutional culture across the river from you particularly hard). So you're okay by me!