3 ms·

If it's clearly not worth HN readers' time, how did it get published in "The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition"? Or am I just naive in thinking published i

If it's clearly not worth HN readers' time, how did it get published in "The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition"? Or am I just naive in thinking published in a Journal still means something? Why did it pass peer review?

WalterSear 4y ago
It's a scientific journal - a place for the researchers to discuss and discover science. This is a lay forum - a place more suited to the discussion of decided science.
- theteapot 4y ago
  Yes exactly. If your average HN user can see sample size is too small, Journal reviewers should be able to. Your not going to discover or decide any science if your sample size is too small.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
johnday 4y ago
> If it's clearly not worth HN readers' time, how did it get published in "The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition"? This comment is extremely funny. I heard a rumour that the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition might be aimed at scientists working on clinical nutrition, who could make meaningful use of this result - and not the readers of Hacker News.
- theteapot 4y ago
  That would be a strange rumour hear. What I'm saying is, if some rando on HN can see see that the trial size is too small to be statistically significant how did it pass peer review?
  - johnday 4y ago
    The trial size is not too small to be statistically significant. It may warrant further investigation by scientists in the field of clinical nutrition. However, it is too small and insignificant for Hacker News readers to make meaningful use of, and it would be incorrect for them to read anything into the results presented. That is the difference.
    - theteapot 4y ago
      So it's a practically baseless conjecture within the field of clinical nutrition, clinical nutritionists now publish such in peer reviewed journals, and the wider scientifically literate public have no business ease dropping on all this. Got it.

WalterSear 4y ago

It's a scientific journal - a place for the researchers to discuss and discover science. This is a lay forum - a place more suited to the discussion of decided science.

theteapot 4y ago
Yes exactly. If your average HN user can see sample size is too small, Journal reviewers should be able to. Your not going to discover or decide any science if your sample size is too small.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

johnday 4y ago

> If it's clearly not worth HN readers' time, how did it get published in "The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition"? This comment is extremely funny. I heard a rumour that the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition might be aimed at scientists working on clinical nutrition, who could make meaningful use of this result - and not the readers of Hacker News.

theteapot 4y ago
That would be a strange rumour hear. What I'm saying is, if some rando on HN can see see that the trial size is too small to be statistically significant how did it pass peer review?
- johnday 4y ago
  The trial size is not too small to be statistically significant. It may warrant further investigation by scientists in the field of clinical nutrition. However, it is too small and insignificant for Hacker News readers to make meaningful use of, and it would be incorrect for them to read anything into the results presented. That is the difference.
  - theteapot 4y ago
    So it's a practically baseless conjecture within the field of clinical nutrition, clinical nutritionists now publish such in peer reviewed journals, and the wider scientifically literate public have no business ease dropping on all this. Got it.