@mVranka There are some inconclusive results; some papers found no difference according to IF (https://t.co/gfti2o3EkK), some the opposite (https://t.co/QpHnXDiQSG). And well... the best alternative is not rely on private company while rating science at al
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
@Keltoi_Santess @DrCoreyWolf @Haruka_Black1
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
RT @Sean__Last: Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statisti…
Importantly, this is the error rate per statistic. At the per article level, of articles that fully reported their statistics, 49.8% had an incorrectly calculated or reported statistic. It's hard to exaggerate the degree to which academics today are a fuck
@ChiapellaUnai "Our results indicate that around 18% of statistical results in the psychological literature are incorrectly reported. Moreover, around 15% of the articles contained at least one statistical conclusion that proved, upon recalculation, to be
Finalmente, en el siguiente artículo, los investigadores revisan una muestra aleatoria de 281 artículos tomados de revistas psicológicas y encuentran que en casi el 18% de ellos hay errores en la forma cómo se reportan los resultados estadísticos. https://
@dalejbarr Also recent quantitative assessment of the phenomenon by Bakker & Wicherts https://t.co/pj3XxAlOAu
@lakens @sampendu @MicheleNuijten yet Bakker hand coded 4,248 and found 18% errors, ~50% errors. https://t.co/fxp6w05nMi
@lakens @MicheleNuijten Not too out of line with this earlier paper that includes checks right? https://t.co/fxp6w05nMi
@Neuro_Skeptic this paper by @JelteWicherts found 18% http://t.co/sJM62XwTbS
@Neuro_Skeptic this paper by @JelteWicherts found 18% http://t.co/sJM62XwTbS
@StatsInTheWild Paper he draws from is this one: http://t.co/pN71KcHD8K "[errors] appeared in 38% and 25% of the articles of Nature and BMJ"
no joke: around 18% of statistical results in the psychological literature are incorrectly reported http://t.co/cnHxdI0CMb
no joke: around 18% of statistical results in the psychological literature are incorrectly reported http://t.co/cnHxdI0CMb
no joke: around 18% of statistical results in the psychological literature are incorrectly reported http://t.co/cnHxdI0CMb
@CyrilRPernet: no joke: around 18% of statistical results in the psychological literature are incorrectly reported http://t.co/58qVT55CWN
no joke: around 18% of statistical results in the psychological literature are incorrectly reported http://t.co/cnHxdI0CMb
Based on 281 psych articles pub in hight & low-impact journals, 18% cont incorrect results & 15% cont miscalculations http://t.co/tpDAor1MRl
no joke: around 18% of statistical results in the psychological literature are incorrectly reported http://t.co/cnHxdI0CMb
no joke: around 18% of statistical results in the psychological literature are incorrectly reported http://t.co/cnHxdI0CMb
no joke: around 18% of statistical results in the psychological literature are incorrectly reported http://t.co/cnHxdI0CMb
no joke: around 18% of statistical results in the psychological literature are incorrectly reported http://t.co/cnHxdI0CMb
no joke: around 18% of statistical results in the psychological literature are incorrectly reported http://t.co/cnHxdI0CMb
no joke: around 18% of statistical results in the psychological literature are incorrectly reported http://t.co/cnHxdI0CMb
Hey @JelteWicherts , where do you share your data? E.g., for this article: https://t.co/tei0fcocLC? Would love to take a look.
@hipscumbag See http://t.co/r7ogYUPnjh @JelteWicherts
«The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals» http://t.co/FuO3DeWhrF #paper #pdf Parece rondar el 30%, nada menos...
«The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals» http://t.co/FuO3DeWhrF #paper #pdf Parece rondar el 30%, nada menos...
«The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals» http://t.co/FuO3DeWhrF #paper #pdf Parece rondar el 30%, nada menos...
@lakens @lakens en deze studie van Jelte Wicherts dan? http://t.co/gL5fQRmY Of -op neurogebied- Sander Nieuwenhuis? http://t.co/FmTwjszR
@lakens en deze studie van Jelte Wicherts dan? http://t.co/gL5fQRmY Of - op neurogebied - Sander Nieuwenhuis?
@CoyneoftheRealm The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals http://t.co/Iuil2PGy
SpringerLink - Behavior Research Methods, Volume 43, Number 3 http://me.lt/3r5AT
This is not good. http://t.co/vRgACXGH
18% of statistics are incorrectly reported in Psychology journals?! http://t.co/TUpJdIJe
RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
RT @Ebevidencia: A leer en ingles y calculadora en mano RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/GhWFPsTu
A leer en ingles y calculadora en mano RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/GhWFPsTu
RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
Statistical errors were often in line with researchers' expectations. http://t.co/GTubZZgn #TeachingStats
The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Roughly 1 in 5. http://t.co/GTubZZgn #TeachingStats
RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
Surprised so little! RT @edyong209 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/Ik0xIJIu
RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
And the % of stats tweeted? ;) MT @edyong209 18% of stats reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/SN1wSaJy
RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
RT @edyong209: 18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
18% of statistical results reported in psychology papers are incorrectly reported. http://t.co/mjd7CM1f
RT @kenmetrics: 最近でたBRMの論文http://t.co/lkEjiDzH 面白い。出版された心理学の論文中で報告されている検定統計量・自由度・p値などをよく調べると不整合(=間違い)のあるものが18%ほどあり、さらに低IF論文誌では間違いが多い。研究者の確証バイアスかもしれない、という議論。
RT @kenmetrics: 最近でたBRMの論文http://t.co/lkEjiDzH 面白い。出版された心理学の論文中で報告されている検定統計量・自由度・p値などをよく調べると不整合(=間違い)のあるものが18%ほどあり、さらに低IF論文誌では間違いが多い。研究者の確証バイアスかもしれない、という議論。
RT @kenmetrics: 最近でたBRMの論文http://t.co/lkEjiDzH 面白い。出版された心理学の論文中で報告されている検定統計量・自由度・p値などをよく調べると不整合(=間違い)のあるものが18%ほどあり、さらに低IF論文誌では間違いが多い。研究者の確証バイアスかもしれない、という議論。
RT @kenmetrics: 最近でたBRMの論文http://t.co/lkEjiDzH 面白い。出版された心理学の論文中で報告されている検定統計量・自由度・p値などをよく調べると不整合(=間違い)のあるものが18%ほどあり、さらに低IF論文誌では間違いが多い。研究者の確証バイアスかもしれない、という議論。
RT @kenmetrics: 最近でたBRMの論文http://t.co/lkEjiDzH 面白い。出版された心理学の論文中で報告されている検定統計量・自由度・p値などをよく調べると不整合(=間違い)のあるものが18%ほどあり、さらに低IF論文誌では間違いが多い。研究者の確証バイアスかもしれない、という議論。
RT @kenmetrics: 最近でたBRMの論文http://t.co/lkEjiDzH 面白い。出版された心理学の論文中で報告されている検定統計量・自由度・p値などをよく調べると不整合(=間違い)のあるものが18%ほどあり、さらに低IF論文誌では間違いが多い。研究者の確証バイアスかもしれない、という議論。
確かに。RT @kenmetrics 最近でたBRMの論文http://t.co/kceNJrHa 面白い。心理学の論文で報告される統計量をよく調べると不整合のあるものが18%ほどあり、さらに低IF論文誌では間違いが多い。研究者の確証バイアスかもしれない、という議論。
RT @kenmetrics: 最近でたBRMの論文http://t.co/lkEjiDzH 面白い。出版された心理学の論文中で報告されている検定統計量・自由度・p値などをよく調べると不整合(=間違い)のあるものが18%ほどあり、さらに低IF論文誌では間違いが多い。研究者の確証バイアスかもしれない、という議論。