4 ms·

For anyone who likes academic drama (or who is interested in the underlying methodological disagreements among academic statisticians), it is worth pointing out

For anyone who likes academic drama (or who is interested in the underlying methodological disagreements among academic statisticians), it is worth pointing out that Jager and Leek's 2014 paper was a discussion paper, and that Ionnidas was one of the people invited to write a response to be published alongside with the original paper. He did (https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxt036 https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxt036) and the response is extremely critical of Jaeger and Leeks' methodology and his contempt for the authors is not hard to read between the lines.

KvanteKat 4y ago
For anyone who wants to get really into the weeds, here are all the articles in the sequence of discussion papers: Main Paper (Jager and Leek): ttps://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxt007 Response papers: - Yoav Benjamini and Yotam Hechtlinger: https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxt032 - David R. Cox: https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxt033 - Andrew Gelman and Keith O'Rourke: https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxt034 - Steven N. Goodman: https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxt035 - John P. A. Ioannidis (the spicy response): https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxt036 - Martijn J. Schuemie, Patrick B. Ryan, Marc A. Suchard, Zach Shahn, and David Madigan: https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxt037 Jaeger and Leeks' rejoinder to the responses: https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxt038 https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxt038 edit: fixed some formatting and link to main paper