A quick list of empirical research 'science crimes': p-hacking, bad controls, weak baselines
burny_tech · x · 2026-10-21
Responding to "do you have a list of science crimes?", burnytech lists common methodological sins in empirical research:
- p-hacking, and avoiding causal tests when possible
- bad controls
- no error bars, or insane error bars
- weak baselines
A short checklist, handy as a quick skeptical lens when reading or reviewing papers.
More from Research
- IFM open-sources RL360: 8,192 concurrent sandboxes and ~1.3M rollouts for agentic RL — rupspace · 2026-10-23
- Carbon-X DNA model slammed: worse than random on 8/10 clinical variant cases — anshulkundaje · 2026-10-23
- Science lifts expression of concern on 2024 AI debunking-conspiracies paper; conclusions unchanged — DG_Rand · 2026-10-23
- Embodied First Exam benchmarks coding agents on 1,090 tasks across 44 robots — ManlingLi_ · 2026-10-23
- Anima Anandkumar on neural operators: AI weather models beat supercomputers — AnimaAnandkumar · 2026-10-23
- Scaling GLM-5.3-Flash training to 1M token context, 64x over Megatron baseline — AndrewLBeam · 2026-10-23