Hostirad (hostirad) wrote,

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Truth or fame

I am still obsessing about what seems to me to be a serious flaw in the data analysis for a paper I am writing. The first draft of the paper has already been reviewed by seven world-class personality psychologists who said they loved the paper. They did not see the flaw that I am looking at. I could probably easily get away with just the cosmetic changes that these reviewers have suggested and no one would ever know. Few people will even read the paper after it is published. If I re-do the analyses to remove the flaw, some of the results are different. The main result, the major point of the paper, is unchanged, but other findings are definitely different. Is it worth it to rewrite the paper? Especially when I am not even sure now how serious the flaw is or whether my alternative solution is better.

I think I am going to share my reservations with just one of the reviewers who has done a lot of work in this area himself, and maybe with the editor who invited me to write this paper. It is humbling, if not humiliating, to do this, but isn't science about truth?

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded