One night in Uzbekistan: Why was this one data point so influential?
61 points by paulpauper 2 days ago | 7 comments

ktoyame 3 minutes ago
Makes me wonder how many more papers out there have hard-to-pin-down errors like that

And how useful potentially AI could be to spot those (even if retrospectively)

reply
electroglyph 15 minutes ago
Good on them for the retraction. It's good to see science at work.
reply
MarkusQ 4 hours ago
We need something akin to the international geophysical year, but for data integrity. Make it an interdisciplinary priority to clean house and root out papers that are hanging by a thread of included / excluded outliers, biased samples, and outright fraud. It would be humbling, but we'd be in much better shape afterwards.
reply
tootie 2 hours ago
I'm confused as to what the actual issue was. What was the data for which Uzbekistan was the outlier and why?
reply
rao-v 2 hours ago
The article suggests it's unreasonable numbers in the original Uzbekistan data source and that other datapoints may have been worse, the authors just didn't correctly execute their basic checks.

"It turns out that Uzbekistan wasn’t even the biggest outlier, but that the version they had published had the axes cropped so you couldn’t see the outliers..."

reply
tjwebbnorfolk 11 minutes ago
> had the axes cropped so you couldn’t see

Almost sounds intentional...

> This seemed indicative of a different issue, which is why we documented it in the comment.

Yea, that different issue is fraud.

reply
esafak 5 hours ago
My read is that the model had too much variance; more regularization was needed.
reply