Using Statistics from Binary Variables to Detect Data Anomalies, Even Possibly Fraudulent Research

Schumm, Walter R.; Crawford, Duane W.; Lockett, Lorenza

doi:10.22606/pra.2019.14004

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our discussion has not attempted to explain how ancient Islamic architects determined directions from one location to another. I did not find any evidence that Gibson was making up his results apart from actual geographic measurements or real data, as have some recent scholars (Schumm et al 2019a(Schumm et al , 2019b. I have had email discussions with Mr. Gibson in an attempt to clarify some discrepancies found between the data reported in his books and that reported on his website.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 61%

How Accurately Could Early (622-900 C.E.) Muslims Determine the Direction of Prayers (Qibla)?

Schumm

2020

Religions

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debate has arisen over the ability of Muslim architects in the first two centuries of Islam to determine true qiblas accurately. Some believe that they had such a capability, while others think not. The argument could be more complex—perhaps some architects could, while others could not; perhaps their accuracy changed over time or over greater distances from qibla targets. Here, we investigated how the accurate qiblas of 60 mosques or related structures were, using data from Daniel Gibson’s books and websites. Contrasts were drawn between theories that the qiblas of early mosques were—or were not—generally accurate. If one were to assume that Mecca was the only qibla, qiblas would not appear to have been accurate. However, if one were to assume that qiblas changed, it would be found that qiblas were accurate to plus or minus two degrees in over half of the cases and accurate within plus or minus five degrees in over 80% of cases. Accuracy was not related to distance but did appear to improve over historical time, while distance from the target cities and historical time were positively associated. The average qibla accuracy had a near zero error, with random variations on either side of that zero error. The overall distribution was not normal—kurtotic—because a greater accuracy was found than would have been expected with a normal distribution; however, the pattern deviated more from a uniform distribution than it did from a normal distribution. To try to synthesize the competing theories, we analyzed data for only 14 of the 60 mosques, those presumed to face towards Mecca, and we found fairly high degrees of qibla accuracy with nearly 43% of qiblas within two degrees of accuracy and nearly 80% within five degrees of accuracy. Comparing the accuracy of Meccan qiblas with other qiblas of the same century, we found no significant differences in azimuth errors. While some architects were more accurate than others, early Muslim architects seemed, in general, quite capable of placing qiblas with reasonable accuracy, even though their accuracy may have improved slightly over the first two centuries of Islam.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 61%

How Accurately Could Early (622-900 C.E.) Muslims Determine the Direction of Prayers (Qibla)?

Schumm

2020

Religions

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This sentiment was also uncovered in the survey, with some respondents reporting that critical appraisal needs to be expanded to consider aspects specific to predatory journals (Supplementary Material 4). However, the detection of fraud and erroneous data is difficult with far fewer resources available to ES authors detailing how to do this 20,24–27 . It is strongly suggested that ES authors consider doing a check of data for any studies that are suspected to have come from a predatory journal, in addition to the standard critical appraisal processes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the detection of fraud and erroneous data is difficult with far fewer resources available to ES authors detailing how to do this. 20,[24][25][26][27] It is strongly suggested that ES authors consider doing a check of data for any studies that are suspected to have come from a predatory journal, in addition to the standard critical appraisal processes. It is also worthwhile to note, that these additional checks can, and perhaps should be performed for studies published in legitimate journals also, however the implications for the review team will need to be considered.…”

Section: Identifying Predatory Journals In Practice Applying the Defi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey‐based cross‐sectional study of evidence synthesis experts

Barker

Pollock

Stone

et al. 2023

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synthesizers of evidence are increasingly likely to encounter studies published in predatory journals during the evidence synthesis process. The evidence synthesis discipline is uniquely positioned to encounter novel concerns associated with predatory journals. The objective of this research was to explore the attitudes, opinions, and experiences of experts in the synthesis of evidence regarding predatory journals. Employing a descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study design, these experts were asked a series of questions regarding predatory journals to explore these attitudes, opinions, and experiences.Two hundred and sixty four evidence synthesis experts responded to this survey. Most respondents agreed with the definition of a predatory journal (86%), however several (19%) responded that this definition was difficult to apply practically. Many respondents believed that studies published in predatory journals are still eligible for inclusion into an evidence synthesis project. However, this was only after the study had been determined to be 'high-quality' (39%) or if the results were validated (13%).

show abstract

“…An earlier commentary (Schumm 2012b) on his articles was deemed by some scholars as a “defense” of his research. However, the standard deviations for two of Regnerus’s binary variables were mathematically impossible for the sample size (Schumm, Crawford, and Lockett 2019a, 2019b). While his critics were correct that his sample lacked more than two or three (of nearly three thousand families represented) cases of children raised from birth by continuously intact lesbian (or gay) parent couples, they did not recognize that most other studies of lesbian or gay couples also featured large percentages of children from unstable lesbian mother or gay father parent couples (Regnerus 2020; Schumm 2018, 2020b, 2020c).…”

Section: Confirmation Bias In Social Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Difficulties With Methodology in Social Science Research With Controversial Issues Regarding Human Sexuality

Schumm

Crawford

2023

Linacre Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social science is commonly used in debates about controversial issues, especially for those concerning human sexuality. However, caution must be exercised in interpreting such social science literature, because of a variety of methodological and theoretical weaknesses that are not uncommon. Families are complex structurally and over time; such data are not easily analyzed. Merely determining the number of, for example, sexual minority families has been a difficult task. While some new theories are popular with social scientists, for example, sexual minority theory, they are often used to the exclusion of other, equally valid theories and often are not well tested empirically. Some types of families remain relatively unexamined. Social scientists can be biased by their own values, which are reflected in weak use of theory and in a variety of methodological problems. Eight studies are presented as examples of probable confirmation bias, in which methods and theory were modified in unusual ways that may have affected the outcomes and conclusions. Suggestions for improving social science include greater attention to effect sizes rather than statistical significance per se, deliberately minimizing the politicization of science, developing a culture of humility with respect to social science, deliberately reducing common biases, and maintaining a deeper curiosity about social science than is often seen. Scientists must be open to seeing their best “sacred cow” ideas or theories disproven or modified with increases in research on such issues. Summary In controversial areas of social science, there can be numerous threats to the validity of science. Here, some of the more common risks for social science research and theory are examined, with several specific illustrations of how bias appears to have crept into social science, often as confirmation bias. Recommendations are made for reducing bias in future research.

show abstract

Using Statistics from Binary Variables to Detect Data Anomalies, Even Possibly Fraudulent Research

Cited by 5 publications

References 16 publications

How Accurately Could Early (622-900 C.E.) Muslims Determine the Direction of Prayers (Qibla)?

How Accurately Could Early (622-900 C.E.) Muslims Determine the Direction of Prayers (Qibla)?

How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey‐based cross‐sectional study of evidence synthesis experts

Difficulties With Methodology in Social Science Research With Controversial Issues Regarding Human Sexuality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About