You need to bring in the same toolkit as in studies that try to establish causality without randomization.
I know it sounds unfair, but I don’t make the rules. These situations are instances of post-treatment bias, if you want to read up on it as a psychologist:
Speaking truth to power
A more user friendly
t-test
regression
variable description
frequency plots, and more.
datacolada.org/132
🚨SOLUTIONS🚨
Desk reject more stuff with actionable feedback.
Don’t request second reviews
Build larger editorial boards of volunteers
Wait to submit your work until it’s ready; a.k.a don’t send in your half-baked trash hoping for feedback
6/7
I’ve thanked people for spending the time to give me comments
After years in academia, I’m exploring data science and research roles in industry.
I'm a quant. social scientist (PhD Yale ’24, NYU) focused on causal inference, experiments, and large-scale data.
Feel free to get in touch or share; all leads appreciated. dwstommes@gmail.com
This quote also reminds me of something that we wrote in our paper on path analysis (journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...). People are just expecting *way* too much of a single study, literally new discoveries exceeding Gregor Mendel's.
How about Don Campbell and his collaborators, who invented regression discontinuity among other things?
Comparing registrations to published papers is essential to research integrity - and almost no one does it routinely because it's slow, messy, and time-demanding.
RegCheck was built to help make this process easier.
Today, we launch RegCheck V2.
🧵
regcheck.app
Back in 2017-18, a friend told me that Yale SOM banned laptops in MBA classes
My syllabi have a footnote recommending the same 2017 @dynarski.bsky.social review that @gregsasso.bsky.social shared. This semester I also looked at Nicholas Decker's recent blog post
www.brookings.edu/articles/for...
nicholasdecker.substack.com/p/should-we-...
“Coding for humans: Best practices for writing software people can read”
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2026/01/17/c...
Rosenbaum, Observation and Experiment
Accessibility is *absolutely* key but also hard because of the curse of knowledge. I've written down some writing advice here: www.the100.ci/2024/12/01/w.... If you're more of a technical person, consider teaming up with a substantive researcher for instant audience access.>
Some people bring up (1) the cost of criticism and (2) that a lot of criticism has already been voiced but ignored. Both points are valid, so here are some suggestion for (1) reducing backlash and (2) increasing impact (from this talk of mine: juliarohrer.com/wp-content/u...
Citations always needed checking! Just as one example, I used to see my sole authored 2013 paper cited as “Lin et al” coz Google Scholar’s bib had an error :)
Some closing thoughts for my students this semester on LLMs and learning #rstats datavizf25.classes.andrewheiss.com/news/2025-12...
I think of the 2019 Nobel as the 2nd wave of the experimental part of the credibility revolution. Ashenfelter, Card, & Lalonde’s work led to major job training RCTs in the US, and Angrist was one of Duflo’s advisors. Ashenfelter has a nice speech on the early history
legacy.iza.org/en/webconten...
Gentle reminder that a correlation coefficient isn’t a particularly great way to quantify the effect of a dichotomous treatment. See also
www.the100.ci/2025/07/28/w...
Excellent new editorial and guideline on interpreting p values and interval estimates
bjsm.bmj.com/content/earl...
I like this from @vamrhein.bsky.social et al. I assigned it to my class last semester and tried to explain that p-values measure how compatible (vs. surprising) the data are with the null, given our assumptions. But yeah, tests & CIs are hard to understand!
www.blakemcshane.com/Papers/natur...
Orley Ashenfelter's papers often have good introductions. Here's Ashenfelter & Plant
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1...
Are you or one of your students considering doing a Ph.D. in a social science? I've spent a lot of time talking about this w/ students & finally wrote something up.
IMO, there are only 3 good reasons to do it. One of them needs to be true--otherwise, don't.
medium.com/the-quantast...
This is written for economists, but I think it’s very helpful more generally
www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=...
A nice recent article on why you should abandon hazard ratios.
#statssky #episky
See our No-Spin report on a widely-covered NBER study of Medicaid expansion. In brief: Despite the abstract's claims that expansion reduced adult mortality 2.5%, the study found much smaller effects that fell short of statistical significance in its main preregistered analysis.🧵
Starting to look like I might not be able to work at Harvard anymore due to recent funding cuts. If you know of any open statistical consulting positions that support remote work or are NYC-based, please reach out! 😅
In case this is of interest, even ANCOVA I is consistent and asymptotically normal in completely randomized experiments (though II is asymptotically more efficient in imbalanced or multiarm designs)
Issues with interpreting p-values haunts even AI, which is prone to same biases as human researchers. ChatGPT, Gemini & Claude all fall prey to "dichotomania" - treating p=0.049 & p=0.051 as categorically different, and paying too much attention to significance. www.cambridge.org/core/journal...