Simon
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,789
- Location
- Monmouth, UK
Columbia Uni prof and Good Science advocate Andrew Gelman wonders how the Lancet could get things so wrong, and how when they did, everyone believed them.
PACE study and the Lancet: Journal reputation is a two-way street - Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
Read the full blog
PACE study and the Lancet: Journal reputation is a two-way street - Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
One think that struck me about this PACE scandal: if this study was so bad as all that, how did it taken so seriously by policymakers and the press?
There’s been a lot of discussion about serious flaws in the published papers, and even more discussion about the unforgivable refusal of the research team to share their data. But the question I want to address here is, how did they get into the position where this research got taken seriously in the first place?
As Dan Kahan might say, what do you call a flawed paper that was published in a journal with impact factor 50 after endless rounds of peer review? A flawed paper.
Read the full blog