Science is f.cked, part 94

sTeamTraen · Post by **sTeamTraen** » Tue Apr 21, 2020 2:51 pm

Post by **Woodchopper** » Tue Apr 21, 2020 3:03 pm

Good work!

Stupidosaurus · Post by **Stupidosaurus** » Wed Apr 22, 2020 12:44 pm

Congratulations on the masterly restraint and understatement used to describe this stinking sack of rotten entrails masquerading as a scientific paper.

Allo V Psycho · Post by **Allo V Psycho** » Sun Apr 26, 2020 7:38 am

Just seen this. Still laughing/shaking head in dismay.

sTeamTraen · Post by **sTeamTraen** » Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:38 pm

Hooray! It's been retracted!

Martin Y · Post by **Martin Y** » Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:52 pm

Succinctly damning description in the retraction notice: "... results described in the Article, in particular the outcomes of statistical analyses, are internally inconsistent and that some results are mathematically impossible"

sTeamTraen · Post by **sTeamTraen** » Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:10 pm

Martin Y wrote: Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:52 pm Succinctly damning description in the retraction notice: "... results described in the Article, in particular the outcomes of statistical analyses, are internally inconsistent and that some results are mathematically impossible"

It was nice of them to thank the person who brought the issues to their attention, too.

Oh, wait, they didn't do that. The information just landed on their desk through a stargate.

Scrutable

Science is f.cked, part 94

Science is f.cked, part 94

Re: Science is f.cked, part 94

Re: Science is f.cked, part 94

Re: Science is f.cked, part 94

Re: Science is f.cked, part 94

Re: Science is f.cked, part 94

Re: Science is f.cked, part 94