app.manifold.xyz/c/numerology...

cc @shengwuli.bsky.social

What's the theory one would have to concoct to hypothesize the opposite of what this article finds? Maybe "postdocs who publish a lot of papers are probably tapped out and can't publish anything else now, whereas the ones who haven't are well rested and ready to start producing hit research soon."

Edited by Susan Fiske, who also described replication studies as “methodological terrorism”.

At least this one will surely replicate (as long as those evil replicators don't bring in any evil identification)

... which, to be fair, is basically what the authors say is their alternative hypothesis. But how could this ever be true in equilibrium?

To hypothesize a null effect, we would need to believe something like "the postdoc period is just a holding tank while people wait for faculty jobs to become available that reveals no information about the candidate and also has no impact on their eventual academic work"...

What's the theory one would have to concoct to hypothesize the opposite of what this article finds? Maybe "postdocs who publish a lot of papers are probably tapped out and can't publish anything else now, whereas the ones who haven't are well rested and ready to start producing hit research soon."

Should we be surprised that people who have positive publication trends during their postdocs are more likely to get faculty jobs? What could the counterfactual hypothesis have possibly been?

Also on Xwitter: x.com/skominers/st...