you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]bife_de_lomo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's quite an old correction, coming from 2020, but it is nonetheless a fascinating insight into the poor level of peer review the original study was subject to. The fact that that findings are completely nullified is amazing.

The think-tank site you link to also has a really good breakdown about the broader "crisis of reproducibility" that plagues social sciences, psychology and even medicine. It allows nonsense like the original paper to gain importance even though the same methodology would yield different results in another study (or if like this study they retroactively analyse something without including it in their original plan then who knows!)