... without calling them out as being crappy? Retraction Watch:
... some fish mating researchers wrote a, um, love note to their peers that failed to be edited out by any of the many eyes who must have at least glanced over it.
Here’s our favorite passage in “Variation in Melanism and Female Preference in Proximate but Ecologically Distinct Environments” (emphasis ours), published in Ethology:
Although association preferences documented in our study theoretically could be a consequence of either mating or shoaling preferences in the different female groups investigated (should we cite the crappy Gabor paper here?), shoaling preferences are unlikely drivers of the documented patterns both because of evidence from previous research and inconsistencies with a priori predictions.
If that’s not a candidate for #overlyhonestmethods, we’re not sure what is. Let’s hope they were focusing too hard on the science to notice the citations.
Or maybe they meant “crappie.”
Provide the crappy papers that you sometimes feel a need to cite in the comments.
