“Not what it seems. I listened to the episode and was appalled so I read the papers. The paper was right in retracting the paper and the scientists responsible should study the principles of data visualization. The paper was retracted because the data was poorly presented and uninterpretable. Their graphs are messy so that I cannot check their claims against their data. In a paper, you display your data in graphs so that any scientist can see it and interpret it clearly and see that they back up your claims. That doesn’t happen in this paper. They also don’t show a key correlation analysis they mention on their intro and conclusions.
Due to the flaws of the paper. No scientist would draw conclusions from it. Show us the data in decent graphs with figure legends and then we can talk.”
Bad science federalist via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
02/17/24