Skip to content

International Journal of Epidemiology versus Hivemind and the Datagoround

The Hivemind wins (see the comment thread here, which is full of detective work from various commenters).

As I wrote as a postscript to that earlier post, maybe we should call this the “stone soup” or “Bem” phenomenon, when a highly flawed work stimulates interesting, thoughtful discussion.


  1. B. C. says:

    It seems that your RSS feed ( ) is not up to date (it is stuck on September 27th).

  2. B.C. says:

    Everything is fine now… may be it was my RSS reader…

  3. I think “question” has a very plausible mechanism for the researchers having mechanically created their seasonal effect. The “data generating process” he uses (simulating how he thinks the researchers collected, entered and analyzed the data) produces a fit to the seasonal trend that is just TOO good.

    “question” obviously is a pseudonym for someone who has wished to remain anonymous, but in an ideal world, this issue should be addressed, and it should be retracted if his analysis is right. Bringing this to the attention of journal editors seems to be potentially career damaging for anyone not well established. Andrew, how do you feel about leading a push-back on the journal based on the analysis done here on your blog?

  4. Elin says:

    This 1991 issue is really a pain. If nothing else they need to share their data, especially for the CMM … though I wonder if there is some privacy issue? No idea at all about the mysterious extra babies between Statistics Sweden and the UN,I’m not seeing any obvious explanation.

Leave a Reply to Daniel Lakeland