(This article was originally published at Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science, and syndicated at StatsBlogs.)
Raghu Parthasarathy sends along this article by C. Glenn Begley listing six questions to ask when worried about unreplicable work in biology:
Were experiments performed blinded? (Even animal studies should be blinded when it comes to the recording and interpretation of the data—do you hear that, Mark Hauser?)
Were basic experiments repeated? (“If reports fail to state that experiments were repeated, be sceptical.”)
Were all the results presented? (That one’s a biggie.)
Were there positive and negative controls? (He offers some details from lab experiments.)
Were reagents validated? (Whatever.)
Were statistical tests appropriate? (I don’t like the idea of statistical “tests” at all, but I agree with his general point.)
The post “Six red flags for suspect work” appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.
Please comment on the article here: Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
