Thread by @tylerblack32

Hi @FrontiersIn : A paper of yours (editor: @GetchellNancy) missed some very important (and honestly basic) statistical issues, and is contributing to a narrative that is not supported by the paper.

#twitterpeerreview
#reviewer2stepsinanddoesthejob
#statstwitter

https://twitter.com/tylerblack32/status/1476946267389497383

The paper should have been challenged on review:

* why not iterate 1 year vs other 5 years for all years '16-20 (resolves all issues)
* why not challenge the finding in "communication at 1 year" increasing for 2020 when clearly the significance comes from the low 2017 #

/2

Had it done so, the conclusion of the paper would be markedly different: "2020 showed similar and expected fluctuations as has been seen in the prior 5 years in all domains," and it would not be used as evidence that "pandemic measures effects harm child development"

/3

While I'm glad I spent my own time to statistically review the paper, I'm very disappointed that I had to and peer review missed this TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE of cherry-picking, selection bias, underfitting, and "hypothesis proving."

/4

Peer review is supposed to pick up these things. It's the whole point. When statistics are selected, the first question should be "was this the appropriate way to test the hypothesis?"

/5

Please rectify, and do better in the future.

This pandemic is swirling with misinformation and missed opportunities like this are tragic, and I've already seen this study gain ground since a misinformation spreader has misused it.

For future reference, I think the peer review about child development would do well with someone with some expertise in child development.

I think both reviewers (one with a strong stats background who probably wants a do-over if they see this, the other from a school of public health) would have benefited.