This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
Here's the link, sorry I'm not terribly competent at posting: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02241-z It's hard to understand exactly what he did from the article but if you look at the first reference it becomes more clear: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07128.x He show that the data generated by the previous author was insufficiently "random" -- the distributions of the "random" data lack tails. Maybe the author removed "outliers" or generated fake data. It's too much for me to go through everything right now but I thought you all would like it and I'm hoping to get back to it myself when I have a chance.
I tagged this as research because it's interesting to think about methods to check for falsified data and this is a new one for me, but if it's mis-tagged the mods can feel free to change it (I probably won't have a chance to check reddit again until this evening).
Subreddit
Post Details
- Posted
- 5 years ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- reddit.com/r/statistics/...