<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <rss version="2.0"> <channel> <title>jaapweel's Comments - LessWrong 2.0 viewer</title> <link>https://www.greaterwrong.com/</link> <description>jaapweel's Comments - LessWrong 2.0 viewer</description> <generator>xml-emitter</generator> <language>en-us</language> <item> <title>Comment by jaapweel on Follow-up on ESP study: "We don't publish replications"</title> <link>https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/b9vvmMn2kF76aThHn/follow-up-on-esp-study-we-don-t-publish-replications#comment-3YpZ7DzsqRduJHPyc</link> <description><p>A former pro­fes­sor and co-au­thor of mine has a pa­per about pub­li­ca­tion bias in PLoS Medicine: <a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050201" class="bare-url">http://www.plosmedicine.org/ar­ti­cle/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjour­nal.pmed.0050201</a></p> <p>He has a num­ber of sug­ges­tions for fix­ing things, but the main thrust ap­pears to be that in a digi­tal world, there is no longer any rea­son for jour­nals to only pub­lish pa­pers that are “in­ter­est­ing” as well as method­olog­i­cally de­cent, and they have no ex­cuse not to adopt a policy of pub­lish­ing all pa­pers that ap­pear cor­rect. But he has a num­ber of other sug­ges­tions too.</p></description> <author>jaapweel</author> <guid>3YpZ7DzsqRduJHPyc</guid> <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:04:26 +0000</pubDate> </item> </channel> </rss>