(This article was originally published at Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science, and syndicated at StatsBlogs.)
I and a couple others received the following bizarre email:
**’s research is just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to expose more serious flaws, look at research by his co-authors – ** at ** and ** at **. I won’t be checking this disposable e-mail address again.
People send me tips all the time where they ask to maintain anonymity, and I do this. This one’s just strange with all the cloak-and-dagger stuff, also because the correspondent didn’t supply any details. If there’s a problem with some published work, you could point to the publication in question and say what the problems are, no?
I would not be surprised if **’s co-authors’ work has serious flaws; at this point I suppose that any readers with a decent internet connection should know to examine very carefully any published claims coming out of that subfield.
P.S. I redacted the names for obvious reasons. The funny thing is, at this point there are dozens of possibilities! Please don’t make any guesses in the comments, as this would add zero value and would just be rude. People make enough real mistakes that there’s no point in slamming them for flaws that have not yet been identified: that’s a form of statistical inference that we can already do in our heads.
The post “An anonymous tip” appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.
Please comment on the article here: Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
