2020: Negative Results - Revision history

Natg19: /* Transcript */

2022-08-09T02:13:33Z

‎Transcript

Jacky720: rv

2022-05-04T21:02:44Z

Show changes

Ex Kay Cee Dee at 21:02, 4 May 2022

2022-05-04T21:02:08Z

Show changes

Jacky720: rv

2022-05-04T20:55:25Z

Show changes

Ex Kay Cee Dee at 20:52, 4 May 2022

2022-05-04T20:52:24Z

Show changes

Davidy22: Reverted edits by X. K. C. D. (talk) to last revision by Ата

2022-05-04T01:58:58Z

Reverted edits by X. K. C. D. (talk) to last revision by Ата

Show changes

X. K. C. D. at 00:58, 4 May 2022

2022-05-04T00:58:43Z

Show changes

Ата: /* Explanation */

2018-11-15T16:39:53Z

‎Explanation

162.158.79.107: "[N]otorious length" sounded needlessly derogative.

2018-11-05T05:52:42Z

"[N]otorious length" sounded needlessly derogative.

Herobrine at 13:02, 1 August 2018

2018-08-01T13:02:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:13, 9 August 2022
Line 30:		Line 30:
	[[Category:Science]]		[[Category:Science]]
	[[Category:Video games]]		[[Category:Video games]]
		+	[[Category:Scientific research]]

@@ 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.
-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.
+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 instead. 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].

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 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 notorious 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].
 The title text references the practice of "pre-registration" of a study, which is one means to prevent publication bias: details of a planned study are registered with an organization before the study is conducted, so that a null result or a change in methodology cannot be hidden. The title text may be a play on words, mixing this up with registering (or booking) travel. On the other hand, it may just be playing on the absurdity of pre-registering a simple trip to the beach with a registry for scientific studies.

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ==Explanation==
 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.  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.
+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 notorious 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].