5 ms·

It does not automatically follow that the reanalysis is also bad...and by saying "we" you presumably were an author on this paper. If you thought it was bad, wh

It does not automatically follow that the reanalysis is also bad...and by saying "we" you presumably were an author on this paper. If you thought it was bad, why did you put your name on it?

rscho 5y ago
I didn't ask for it. I just found about it after the fact and not being a professor I have no say in the matter. Also, I'd prefer to keep my job since I have a family to feed. Yes, the reanalysis is terrible and it follows from the fact that the base methodology is unsound.
- SubiculumCode 5y ago
  You absolutely can ask to have your named removed. To be diplomatic, you can always claim that you didn't do enough to deserve credit. Even now, you could contact the journal to request the change. In your particular case, I will not contest that the reanalysis was terrible. My point was that reanalysis of a paper after an issue is raised is not automatically also crap. It may indeed be correcting the issue.
  - rscho 5y ago
    Yes, I could ask to lose my job. But again, I prefer not to. Research in certain (most?) fields is a dictatorship and even suggesting something to be fishy puts a target on your back. In this particular case, there were multiple outcomes tested (read: tens of them) and alpha was .05
    - SubiculumCode 5y ago
      Man, all I can say is you are working for a bad prof then. I can't imagine any of my former advisors/colleagues/etc punishing me for declining to be a co-author.
      - rscho 5y ago
        I am guessing that you don't do clinical research, then ;-)
        SubiculumCode 5y ago
        Im on the edge of clinical work. I work with some clinical people, but am not clinical myself. I would say that they are a bit more willing to be instrumental and throw a bunch of comparisons out and see what sticks. Its largely because of a lack of awareness about statistical issues though, and they respond well to my objections.
        rscho 5y ago
        Well, most professors around here don't respond well at all to objections. All (MD) professors I've met are dangerous Excel spreadsheet warriors. Note that we have a statistician in our unit, that no one listens to because "we always did it that way, right?". However, in a wider view the issue is far bigger than that: for a clinician nowadays it's become basically impossible to both be a really honest researcher while acquiring sufficient publication velocity to rise above. In a word, our system selects for bad actors.
        frostburg 5y ago
        I occasionally help this sort of people process and visualize data (they ignore their own internal statisticians, of course), but they're friends, so I can shut them down when needed. I have heard the term "retrospective control group" being used.
        samatman 5y ago
        I'm reminded of a bit of dialogue from Fight Club: "Which car company do you work for?" "...a major one."
    - oldgradstudent 5y ago
      Do they produce mere noise, or there's additional fraud involved?
      - rscho 5y ago
        Noise. But don't judge too harshly, it's actually like that everywhere I got to work.
        oldgradstudent 5y ago
        That's why I judge it so harshly.
- caddemon 5y ago
  Maybe it's a field specific thing, or maybe one of the other authors pretended to be you, but I am surprised something could be published with your name on the author list without you knowing about it. Every paper I've ever been listed on, sometimes 10+ authors deep, has required me to confirm that I want my name on the paper/attest I contributed.
- dekhn 5y ago
  you absolutely have a say in the matter of having your name included in any publication list. If a paper was submitted with your name and you don't support it, let the PI know, and send a letter to the editor asking for the paper to be withdrawn or retracted.

It does not automatically follow that the reanalysis is also bad...and by saying "we" you presumably were an author on this paper. If you thought it was bad, why did you put your name on it?

rscho 5y ago

I didn't ask for it. I just found about it after the fact and not being a professor I have no say in the matter. Also, I'd prefer to keep my job since I have a family to feed. Yes, the reanalysis is terrible and it follows from the fact that the base methodology is unsound.

SubiculumCode 5y ago
You absolutely can ask to have your named removed. To be diplomatic, you can always claim that you didn't do enough to deserve credit. Even now, you could contact the journal to request the change. In your particular case, I will not contest that the reanalysis was terrible. My point was that reanalysis of a paper after an issue is raised is not automatically also crap. It may indeed be correcting the issue.
- rscho 5y ago
  Yes, I could ask to lose my job. But again, I prefer not to. Research in certain (most?) fields is a dictatorship and even suggesting something to be fishy puts a target on your back. In this particular case, there were multiple outcomes tested (read: tens of them) and alpha was .05
  - SubiculumCode 5y ago
    Man, all I can say is you are working for a bad prof then. I can't imagine any of my former advisors/colleagues/etc punishing me for declining to be a co-author.
    - rscho 5y ago
      I am guessing that you don't do clinical research, then ;-)
      - SubiculumCode 5y ago
        Im on the edge of clinical work. I work with some clinical people, but am not clinical myself. I would say that they are a bit more willing to be instrumental and throw a bunch of comparisons out and see what sticks. Its largely because of a lack of awareness about statistical issues though, and they respond well to my objections.
        rscho 5y ago
        Well, most professors around here don't respond well at all to objections. All (MD) professors I've met are dangerous Excel spreadsheet warriors. Note that we have a statistician in our unit, that no one listens to because "we always did it that way, right?". However, in a wider view the issue is far bigger than that: for a clinician nowadays it's become basically impossible to both be a really honest researcher while acquiring sufficient publication velocity to rise above. In a word, our system selects for bad actors.
        frostburg 5y ago
        I occasionally help this sort of people process and visualize data (they ignore their own internal statisticians, of course), but they're friends, so I can shut them down when needed. I have heard the term "retrospective control group" being used.
      - samatman 5y ago
        I'm reminded of a bit of dialogue from Fight Club: "Which car company do you work for?" "...a major one."
  - oldgradstudent 5y ago
    Do they produce mere noise, or there's additional fraud involved?
    - rscho 5y ago
      Noise. But don't judge too harshly, it's actually like that everywhere I got to work.
      - oldgradstudent 5y ago
        That's why I judge it so harshly.
caddemon 5y ago
Maybe it's a field specific thing, or maybe one of the other authors pretended to be you, but I am surprised something could be published with your name on the author list without you knowing about it. Every paper I've ever been listed on, sometimes 10+ authors deep, has required me to confirm that I want my name on the paper/attest I contributed.
dekhn 5y ago
you absolutely have a say in the matter of having your name included in any publication list. If a paper was submitted with your name and you don't support it, let the PI know, and send a letter to the editor asking for the paper to be withdrawn or retracted.