READ THE FUCKING CODEBOOK PS ⁦⁩ is a superhero
New claim that married women say they're happier only when hubby is in the room is based on an error: "Spouse absent" means "gone," not "stepped out." Long-time finding: Marriage correlates w happiness, more for men, but also for women. (corr =/= caus.)
The last few weeks have had several high-profile incidents in which expert book authors were discovered to have badly misread the research they used in their books
This is a huge huge huge problem
"Many books aren’t fact-checked, and we’re increasingly realizing they’re full of errors"
Things I’ve reaffirmed this week: 1. Mistakes happen. If you make one, fess up and make your work better. To avoid 1: 2. Know your data + codebook in and out. 3. Ask for feedback. Bonus points if you can find an expert on your data like
"Don’t trust shocking claims with a single source, even if they’re from a well-regarded expert. It’s all too easy to misread a study, and all too easy for those errors to make it all the way to print."
In a new book, a behavioral scientist claimed that married women are "f***ing miserable." But he’d misread the data.
Training for over a decade with the ATUS codebook and IPUMS documentation prepared me well to speak to about some strong claims made using the data. She wrote about it at :
"Many books aren’t fact-checked, and we’re increasingly realizing they’re full of errors." "There are no good mechanisms to make sure books are accurate, and that’s a problem." Going into a spiel about fact-checkers would indicate there IS a mechanism…
“There are a few major lessons here. The first is that books are not subject to peer review, and in the typical case not even subject to fact-checking by the publishers.” ⁦⁩ strikes another blow in his debunking mission.
I can think of a significant class of books which this author neglects when she says “books are not subject to peer review.” University Press books. It is far from foolproof but it is most definitely a layer of quality control. via
This is such a bold move. His claims in the Guardian are shown to rest on faulty analysis () The next week he shows up in the Guardian blaming the psychological forces that prevented people from believing his debunked analysis
i don't know who needs to hear this, but you really need to read the data dictionary.
A new book says married women are miserable. Don’t believe it.⁦
A new book says married women are miserable. Don’t believe it. via
Yikes - all about the lack of fact-checking in trade books
Recent serious misinterpretations of sources by ⁦⁩ and ⁦⁩ in books highlight the need for publishers to take responsibility for fact-checking as part of the editorial process ⁦⁩ via ⁦
Even Vox: “A new book says married women are miserable. Don’t believe it.” ⁦⁩ ⁦
"Many books aren’t fact-checked, and we’re increasingly realizing they’re full of errors." This was driven home for me when reading a book about the RAND Corporation, which said two 747s hit the east side of the WTC
Nonfiction books are riddled with flagrant errors
article about importance of fact checking and peer review to prevent errors. But this part of article could have used some fact checking- “books are not subject to peer review, and in the typical case not even subject to fact-checking by the publishers”
Didn’t expect this from ⁦⁩ Well done!
We "often assume that [books are] as serious, and as carefully verified, as scientific papers — or at least that there’s some vetting in place. But often, that faith is misplaced. There are no good mechanisms to make sure books are accurate."
I’m amused as hell that in a story about fact-checking, the howler "books are not subject to peer review” got through. BOOKS BY SCHOLARLY/ACADEMIC PRESSES ARE REGULARLY PEER-REVIEWED. Trade books, not so much, that much is true.
A new book says married women are miserable. Don’t believe it.
audits never end
"This is only the most recent example of a visible trend — books by prestigious and well-regarded researchers go to print with glaring errors, which are only discovered when an expert in the field, or someone on Twitter, gets a glance at them."
Oops! Many books aren’t fact-checked, and we’re increasingly realizing they’re full of errors. - A new book says married women are miserable. Don’t believe it. (It’s hard to undo the idiotic press coverage of mistaken takes).
Great article and great catch by , but important point of clarification: academic books ARE subject to peer review.
Great article and great catch by , but important point of clarification: academic books ARE subject to peer review.
We "often assume that [books are] as serious, and as carefully verified, as scientific papers — or at least that there’s some vetting in place. But often, that faith is misplaced. There are no good mechanisms to make sure books are accurate."
A new book says married women are miserable. Don’t believe it.