Wednesday, May 09, 2012

Jumping the Hockey Stick Doesn't Break It

Eli was innocently tip typing away when Ethon flew in.  After some liver tarts, the big guy started to giggle.  You know Eli, he said (well Eli has always assumed he, but to tell the truth, bird sexing ain't a Rabett's thing), remember when Fonzi jumped the shark, well, our friend Roger, jumped the hockey stick and all he broke was his cover.

 What do you mean the Bunny asked, munching on a carrot.  Well, you know how PJ likes to kind of smarm about, about a week ago he put up a post on 
A new research paper just out in the journal Psychological Science by John et al. seeks to quantify the incidence of what are called "questionable research practices" in psychological research.
which, of course, was about practices in psychology papers.  None to complementary it was, and down at the bottom he just, by accident slipped an image and a few words in
 The authors suggest that the prevalence of questionable research practices may help to explain the finding the many studies cannot be replicated:
QRPs can waste researchers’ time and stall scientific progress, as researchers fruitlessly pursue extensions of effects that are not real and hence cannot be replicated. More generally, the prevalence of QRPs raises questions about the credibility of research findings and threatens research integrity by producing unrealistically elegant results that may be difficult to match without engaging in such practices oneself. This can lead to a “race to the bottom,” with questionable research begetting even more questionable research. If reforms would effectively reduce the prevalence of QRPs, they not only would bolster scientific integrity but also could reduce the pressure on researchers to produce unrealistically elegant results.
I think I am on safe ground when I say that the problem of questionable research practices goes well beyond the discipline of psychology.
Eli was shocked.


bill said...

Vowelly pedants corner: 'None to complementary it was' needs an 'o' added and an 'e' replaced by an 'i'.

EliRabett said...

Bill, Eli is both obtuse (see hockey stick) and enjoys puns. Some say he needs an interpreter, but look at that again. Roger is trying to carry the idea that the science behind proxy recontructions involved questionable research practices. Eli points out that he is using an irrelevant paper and image innuendo to do so and therefore the paper does not have anything (none) or at best very much to do with the image. Of course, he does so in a way that leaves open a retreat into the how dare you read into my pictures pearl clutch.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Roger was referring to McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 and the Wegman Report? That at least would make sense. :)

Robert Murphy

J Bowers said...

I see Roger was so outraged at being misleadingly listed by Heartland as one of their experts.... he attacked Joe Romm.

bill said...

Um, Eli, bill pleads obtuse re Eli's obtusion(?), and shall be on wary of further cryptic pratfall opportunities...

Roger Jones said...

Hmmm, from stealth science to stealth blogging that would be. Talk about passive aggressive.

Anonymous said...

Even QRP's are still better than UBRP's (unquestionably bad research practices) which RPJ is so fond of (the Mobius citation, for example)


J Bowers said...

Scott Mandia catches young Roger out in a... mistake. ROFLMAO.

Former Skeptic said...

Woger opines: "I think I am on safe ground when I say that the problem of questionable research practices goes well beyond the discipline of psychology."

What can I say? He's right.

Nice to also see a grown man resorting to victim bullying others on Twitter after being caught in a lie.

Stay classy, Roger.