LogFAQs > #910555757

COVxy posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Yeah, I agree. But they (and you) have no basis for singling out gender studies like this. In their case, they're very obviously being dishonest, implying an agenda to make the field look bad, and make it look like "less serious science".
In your case idk.

I'm not saying I have any knowledge of the base rates in any other field, just that the observed base rate here is waaay too high.

If discrimination of hoax work and real work is this low, that spells trouble for any field.

Yeah, but what do you expect? Reviewers work for free, and rarely if ever have resources to re-run experiments and as such validate that data isn't faked. Scientific publishing is - and has always been - heavily reliant on trust. The "study" ITT abuses that fact to discredit particular fields of study.
---

Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.