4 ms·
Can someone potentially smarter than me explain how the data, which in table I clearly shows the majority of the means for each experiment metric being less tha
by noobermin 2y ago
Can someone potentially smarter than me explain how the data, which in table I clearly shows the majority of the means for each experiment metric being less than the SD could even hope to be salvaged? Taken blindly, the results are simply unbelieveable to outright lying, the sort of thing you see submitted to garbage open access journals. The text describing model they employ afterwards is not convincing enough for me and seems light on details. I mean, wouldn't any reasonable reviewer demand more?
I know preprints don't need polish but this is even below the standard of a preprint, imo.
- smokel 2y agoAt least they acknowledge this: "However, the table also shows that for all outcomes (with the exception of the Build Success Rate), the standard deviation exceeds the pre-treatment mean, and sometimes by a lot. This high variability will limit our power in our experimental regressions below." What I find even stranger is that the values in the "control" and "treatment" columns are so similar. That would be highly unlikely given the extreme variability, no?