(This article was originally published at Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science, and syndicated at StatsBlogs.)
Here’s an ironic juxtaposition from Tyler Cowen’s blog.
On 28 Apr he discusses a paper with a market system for improving peer review and concludes, “Interesting, but the main problem with the idea is simply that no one cares.”
The day before, his assorted links featured “Frequency of Sex Shapes Automatic, but Not Explicit, Partner Evaluations,” which pointed to a Psychological Science paper that was just full of forking paths, arbitrary data selection and analysis decisions, comparisons of statistically significant to non-significant, characterization of “p less than .1” as “marginally significant” . . . the works. The full Psych Sci monty.
The point is that, as long as generally savvy opinion leaders such as Tyler Cowen trust peer-reviewed publications on sight, we can’t afford not to care about peer review.
The post You may not be interested in peer review, but peer review is interested in you appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.
Please comment on the article here: Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
