alt Hacker NewsSeems like n=11 should have been n=1. Use 19, 21, and 1 as a numerator of /41 and you end up with all the same percentages written in the abstract. A typo that should have been caught, but surely nothing more than that and certainly not substantive enough to qualify the claim below:
> This paper is very bad. The numbers in the abstract don’t even add up, which any reviewer should have caught.
> A typo that should have been caught, but surely nothing more than that and certainly not substantive enough to qualify the claim below:
Such an obvious error should have been caught by the authors proofreading their own work, to be honest. Any reviewer would also catch it when evaluating the quality of the sample size.
I find it strange that people are bending over backward to defend this paper and its obvious flaws and limitations.