= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
paper-machine comments on [Link] The real end of science - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (54)
The first graph is misleading. The proper metric is the proportion of fraud/error/duplication among all articles, or alternatively the proportion of scientists who have been accused of fraud/error/duplication at least once.
The second graph is better, except it's unclear if the vertical axis means, e.g., 0.005% or 0.5%.
Neither graph indicates its origin, the population of articles studied, or anything else I could use to evaluate them.
The vertical axis on the second graph specifies that it's in percent, on the label, so that would at least be 0.005%.
Isn't that the "new paper in PNAS" linked in the post?
How am I supposed to know where the graphs come from? The paper is conveniently behind a paywall. The abstract does say something about
but this isn't the whole story, since the data on the graph goes back to 1975.