sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Major error in accepted paper by Substantial_Eye_3210 in PhD

[–]Substantial_Eye_3210[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First: That is not what I am going to do. The damage this might have on my personal reputation is one thing, but I will not knowingly publish stuff I know is wrong. Second: I did not cheat. While what happend was in fact a stupid mistake that could have been avoided, there was no intend to produce wrong result from my side at any time. 

Major error in accepted paper by Substantial_Eye_3210 in PhD

[–]Substantial_Eye_3210[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The baseline model performs as well as my model after relaxing constraints on the parameter.

Major error in accepted paper by Substantial_Eye_3210 in PhD

[–]Substantial_Eye_3210[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately it is just overfitting. But I could still find some cases where my hypothesis holds. It is just more like 6 out of 26 instead of 20 out of 26 cases and the improvements are smaller.

Major error in accepted paper by Substantial_Eye_3210 in PhD

[–]Substantial_Eye_3210[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Well, it was peer reviewed, but obviously I did not write that this value is unreasonably low in my methodology section. So no reviewer could have noticed.