{"id":1841,"date":"2013-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2013-03-15T17:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/35.224.237.165\/index.php\/2019\/02\/25\/sexual-experimentation-fails-peer-review\/"},"modified":"2019-02-26T04:58:40","modified_gmt":"2019-02-25T21:58:40","slug":"sexual-experimentation-fails-peer-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chicagoshadydealer.com\/index.php\/2013\/03\/16\/sexual-experimentation-fails-peer-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Sexual Experimentation Fails Peer Review"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"\" alt=\" \" \/><\/p>\n<h6>By <a href=\"\/search?author=Morgan Pantuck and Reed Thurston\">Morgan Pantuck and Reed Thurston<\/a><\/h6>\n<h6>April 23, 2016<\/h6>\n<p>A controversial study submitted to the <i>New England Journal of Medicine<\/i> was officially rejected for publication this past weekend following peer review. \u201cButt Stuff: An Examination of Phenomena Beyond Fourth Base,\u201d by <insert class=\"ins cts-1\" data-cid=\"3\" data-time=\"1461634730887\" data-userid=\"13\" data-username=\"Matthew Goldenberg\">James <\/insert>Abbott &#038; <insert class=\"ins cts-1\" data-cid=\"13\" data-time=\"1461634737958\" data-userid=\"13\" data-username=\"Matthew Goldenberg\">Emily <\/insert>Knight, was expected to make a large impact on sexology and related fields. However, the Journal released a brief statement explaining that the study simply had too many holes for publication.<\/p>\n<p>In particular, the work was strongly criticized for its small sample size and lack of proper control groups. \u201cI have great respect for both Abbott and Knight,\u201d explained University of Chicago researcher Elaine Nguyen, who helped review the case. \u201cHowever, just because they have been married for twenty years and both have PhDs does not mean that they can run an entire experiment by themselves.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>Nguyen also noted that the authors refuse to report an exact p-value. \u201cI don\u2019t know why Abbott is so sensitive about his p-value,\u201d she commented. \u201cIt must not be very significant.\u201d Knight, for her part, was recently quoted in <i>Time<\/i> magazine in favor of abandoning p-values altogether, since so many authors exaggerate them. \u201cLess than 5% my ass,\u201d she reportedly mumbled while viewing an image on her phone.<\/p>\n<p>While many critics do not believe the experiment can be saved, several have offered suggestions for potentially improving the protocols. \u201cI advised that they re-run the experiment under blind conditions,\u201d noted Dr. Gregory Rothschild, co-author of \u201cMMF Threesomes: Do They Make You Gay?\u201d, which was published in <i>Nature<\/i> in 2011. \u201cIf Emily [Knight] were willing to wear one of those silk scarves over her eyes, like in <i>50 Shades of Grey<\/i>, I would find the results more convincing.\u201d Dr. Rothschild also generously extended an offer to join the research team, if needed, and offer his personal expertise.<\/p>\n<p>Abbott and Knight have yet to officially respond to criticism. However, one of Knight\u2019s colleagues, Patricia Corinth, told the <i>Dealer<\/i> in confidence that future research will be delayed by at least a week while the authors \u201ccool off\u201d and \u201cre-examine their marriage\u201d following an argument about whether or not they should attempt to film and publish additional trials. The <i>Dealer<\/i> tried to reach Knight at her mother\u2019s house, but received no comment. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Morgan Pantuck and Reed Thurston April 23, 2016 A controversial study submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine was officially rejected for publication this past weekend following peer review. \u201cButt Stuff: An Examination of Phenomena Beyond Fourth Base,\u201d by James Abbott &#038; Emily Knight, was expected to make a large impact on sexology and related fields. However, the Journal released a brief statement explaining that the study simply had too many holes for publication. In particular, the work was strongly criticized for its small sample size and lack of proper control groups. \u201cI have great respect for both Abbott and Knight,\u201d explained University of Chicago researcher Elaine Nguyen, who helped review the case. \u201cHowever, just because they have been married for twenty years and both have PhDs does not mean that they can run an entire experiment by themselves.\u201d Nguyen also noted that the authors refuse to report an exact p-value. \u201cI don\u2019t know why Abbott is so sensitive about his p-value,\u201d she commented. \u201cIt must not be very significant.\u201d Knight, for her part, was recently quoted in Time magazine in favor of abandoning p-values altogether, since so many authors exaggerate them. \u201cLess than 5% my ass,\u201d she reportedly mumbled while viewing an image on her phone. While many critics do not believe the experiment can be saved, several have offered suggestions for potentially improving the protocols. \u201cI advised that they re-run the experiment under blind conditions,\u201d noted Dr. Gregory Rothschild, co-author of \u201cMMF Threesomes: Do They Make You Gay?\u201d, which was published in Nature in 2011. \u201cIf Emily [Knight] were willing to wear one of those silk scarves over her eyes, like in 50 Shades of Grey, I would find the results more convincing.\u201d Dr. Rothschild also generously extended an offer to join the research team, if needed, and offer his personal expertise. Abbott and Knight have yet to officially respond to criticism. However, one of Knight\u2019s colleagues, Patricia Corinth, told the Dealer in confidence that future research will be delayed by at least a week while the authors \u201ccool off\u201d and \u201cre-examine their marriage\u201d following an argument about whether or not they should attempt to film and publish additional trials. The Dealer tried to reach Knight at her mother\u2019s house, but received no comment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1841","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-komono"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chicagoshadydealer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1841","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chicagoshadydealer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chicagoshadydealer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chicagoshadydealer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chicagoshadydealer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1841"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/chicagoshadydealer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1841\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2874,"href":"https:\/\/chicagoshadydealer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1841\/revisions\/2874"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chicagoshadydealer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1841"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chicagoshadydealer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1841"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chicagoshadydealer.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}