[tripletao]

It's good that Ioannidis improved the analysis in response to criticism, but that doesn't mean the criticism was invalid; if anything, that's typically evidence of the opposite. As I read Gelman's complaint of wasted time and demand for an apology, it seems entirely focused on the incorrect analysis. He writes:

> The point is, if you’re gonna go to all this trouble collecting your data, be a bit more careful in the analysis!

I read that as a complaint about the analysis, not a claim that the study shouldn't have been conducted (and analyzed correctly).

Gelman's blog has exposed bad statistical research from many authors, including the management scientists under discussion here. I don't see any evidence that they applied a harsher standard to Ioannidis.