HexesofVexes

Lemmy doesn’t always get sarcasm - please don’t stop though!

A running joke could be renaming the genders as “solo” and “co-op” for MMOs.

In some fields (e.g. mathematics) old papers hold up well. However, in fields like psychology where the landscape shifts a lot that’s probably a good shout!

Honestly, I always poke the stats no matter how good the journal. The best way to read any article is as a skeptic (the onus is on the writer to prove their point), and any small irregularity is something to be queried.

No matter how good the journal, it’s only as good as the reviewers, and reviewers are humans too. Odds are a paper in nature is all above board, but I’m somewhat of a pedant when it comes to checking test conditions.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-19418-4.pdf

Paper itself above. Need a deeper reading with my notes but on the surface the stats are so-so. They check normality, but don’t confirm linearity (use of pmcc will not be valid without - there are also a few other conditions to check for hypothesis testing with PMCC if memory serves), use of a continuous test (PMCC, ANOVA, unpaired t’s) for discrete (likert) data is also little controversial, but generally condoned.

As for the conclusion, not a psych phd so I’ll assume they know their stuff!

Find out what (or if they drink) first!