Why do articles appear in print when
study methods, analyses, results, and conclusions are somewhat faulty?
[This may be considered as a follow-up to an earlier edstat interchange.]
My first, and perhaps overly critical, response is that the editorial
practices are faulty. I don't find Dennis Roberts' "reasons" in his 27 Apr
message too satisfying. I regularly have students write critiques of
articles in their respective areas of study. And I discover many, many,
... errors in reporting. I often ask myself, WHY? I can think of two
reasons: 1) journal editors can not or do not send manuscripts to reviewers with
statistical analysis expertise; and 2) manuscript originators do not regularly
seek methodologists as co-authors. Which is more prevalent?
For whatever it is worth
...
Carl Huberty
|
- No Subject Jineshwar Singh
- No Subject Mark W. Humphries
- No Subject Аббакумов Вадим Леонардович
- No Subject BeyondTheFormula
- No Subject NEUMA TERESINHA NADAL
- No Subject cchiu+
- No Subject Hindley, Jane
- No Subject SamFaz Consulting
- Re: (none) Rich Ulrich
- Re: (none) Donald Burrill
- Re: Carl Huberty
- Re: Robert J. MacG. Dawson
- Re: dennis roberts
- Re: dennis roberts
- Re: (none) Rich Ulrich
- Re: (none) EugeneGall
- Re: (none) Jay Warner
- Re: (none) Rich Ulrich
- No Subject Fanny Martino