[typomatic]

> What I take away from this all is that for every article about academic misconduct and p hacking there are 100 more where the peer review process (both before and during submission to a journal) caught the issues in time.

p-hacking isn't a mathematical error. It cannot be "caught" because it is not presented to referees--you slightly modify your hypotheses after you experiment based on results, or you throw out "outliers" that blow up your theory. These are things that don't even show up in a paper, they happen during the compilation of the paper.

How you could conclude that p-hacking is rare based on a completely unrelated experience is beyond me.

[osamagirl69]

>How you could conclude that p-hacking is rare based on a completely unrelated experience is beyond me.

I was involved in the submission of >100 papers through peer review processes, none of which involved p-hacking. In fact, they couldn't have been p-hacked because their novelty did not rely on any statistical analysis, or they were preregistered with the journal.

I did have a run-in with 1 publication that I suspected involved academic misconduct (fabrication of experimental results), but it was a thesis so it did not go through the peer review process.

[jononor]

That is great. Pre-registration is far from standard in many fields though? And more and more papers are involving some level of statistical analysis?