Editing 2020: Negative Results
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Recently, scientists have begun encouraging each other to publish negative results, where a study failed to find the intended effect, as a way of counteracting {{w|publication bias}} (where only interesting positive results get published), which results in false-positive results being published while negative results are not. | Recently, scientists have begun encouraging each other to publish negative results, where a study failed to find the intended effect, as a way of counteracting {{w|publication bias}} (where only interesting positive results get published), which results in false-positive results being published while negative results are not. | ||
| − | Cueball misinterprets the "push to publish negative results" as meaning that he should always attempt to publish the fact that he failed to find evidence of an effect, even when he didn't even try, spending his time playing a video game | + | Cueball misinterprets the "push to publish negative results" as meaning that he should always attempt to publish the fact that he failed to find evidence of an effect, even when he didn't even try, instead spending his time playing a video game. This plays on the unspoken assumption that scientists would only choose to submit (and journals would only accept) negative results where a study was designed and executed well enough that it should have shown an effect or at least demonstrated evidence of some kind. |
Besides personal preferences, ''{{w|The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild}}'', the most recent ''Legend of Zelda'' game at the time of publication, was likely chosen for its notable length, Nintendo nerd cred, and a relevance to ''{{w|Nature (journal)|Nature}}'' magazine’s subject. The average time to beat 100% of the content is [https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=38019 over 175 hours]. | Besides personal preferences, ''{{w|The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild}}'', the most recent ''Legend of Zelda'' game at the time of publication, was likely chosen for its notable length, Nintendo nerd cred, and a relevance to ''{{w|Nature (journal)|Nature}}'' magazine’s subject. The average time to beat 100% of the content is [https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=38019 over 175 hours]. | ||
