(This article was originally published at Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science, and syndicated at StatsBlogs.)
Our recent discussion of the problems with peer review reminded me of this amusing/horrifying story from a few years ago, when some researchers noticed a data coding error in a published paper
Once it was noticed, the error was obvious:
But the authors of the original paper had that never-back-down attitude. So instead of thanking these others for catching their mistake, they wrote:
When any call is made for the retraction of two peer-reviewed and published articles, the onus of proof is on the claimant and the duty of scientific care and caution is manifestly high. . . . We continue to stand by the analyses, findings and conclusions reported in our earlier publications.
Echoes of the notorious “We stand by Matt” episode.
Perhaps there’s a general rule here: when you feel you have to announce that you “stand by” something or someone, don’t. Just don’t.
My problem is not with the authors of that paper making a mistake—we all make mistakes, and some of those mistakes get into print—but with the authors hiding behind peer review.
Also it reflects a disgraceful lack of interest in their own research topic.
If you think of scientific research as a game where the prizes are publication, renown, and tenured professorships—then yes, by all means, try to bury all criticism and fight so hard that nobody will ever want to mess with you again.
On the other hand, if you think of scientific research as a way to learn about reality, you should be thrilled when your expectations are confounded, when someone points out an error and you have to rethink. Sure, it’s disappointing, but out of such disappointments are new understandings made. Remember the fractal nature of scientific revolutions.
The post Peer review abuse flashback appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.
Please comment on the article here: Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
