Abstract
ABSTRACTPashler, Rohrer, Abramson, Wolfson, and Harris (2016/this issue) identify a number of features of the data in Chatterjee, Rose, and Sinha (2013), particularly in Study 3, that cause them to question the scientific validity of the conclusions drawn from the data. Based on the critics’ analyses and my own investigation, I concur that Study 3 data are likely unreliable. However, Pashler et al. question the scientific validity of all three studies while providing support for their skepticism only for Study 3, clearly an overgeneralization. The processes leading to the original publication and the critics’ challenge to the original work highlight some crucial questions regarding trust, loyalty, mentorship, and oversight in multiple authored articles.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
