Alternate Title: Baffling with Bull $#!†
This post discusses two "research articles" recently published in peer review journals, and how their use of statistical terminology:
- imparts undue scientific seriousness to the content of the paper
- obscures the fact that there is nothing new in the paper to make it even worthy of publication, and
- allows the authors to assign scientific significance to editorial opinions that are at best not supported by the statistical analysis in question, at worst directly contradicted by it.
These two "studies" both boil down to exploiting statistical jargon and methodology to further an agenda. It's a darned shame the quality of the peer-review process has declined so precipitously in recent times as to allow such obvious examples to get through.