"the author is lying" seems a pretty draconian conclusion to draw, simply when the data are not readily available. Almost equally, we could say that when the author provides 'cleaned' data, that someone has cooked the books, or removed 'offending' data.
Don't forget: one side is 'the author is lying' and the other is 'the author is truthful.' Just like a Student 't' test, there is a large ground in between, in which we must say, 'there is insufficient data to conclude the author is truthful, or lying.'
Certainly, in the modern age my skepticism indicator would be alert, without some data behind the paper. With industrial studies, most companies are loath to provide raw data in any form, and sometimes insist that the conclusions be coded as well. Price of doing studies with them. With the cost of on-line storage being less and less, we should expect that every non-commercial research report today gives access to the bathwater, as well as the baby. Which would be one element of developing credibility. But not the only one.
Cheers,
Jay
On Feb 2, 2013, at 12:14:39 PM, Dorothy Middleton wrote:
> It is appalling how many journals are still willing to publish research
> results while not providing a URL to the data underlying the research.
> Do I suspect in such instances that the author is lying?
>
> Phillip Good
>
> You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
>
> SIGNOFF allstat
>
> to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA
Ph: 262.634.9100
email: [log in to unmask]
web: www.a2q.com
The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today?
You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
SIGNOFF allstat
to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
|