Quentin André

@quentinandre.bsky.social

Assistant Prof. of Marketing @ CU Boulder. Open science, research methods, managerial and numerical cognition. ❤️Python 🐍.

ALL the papers from Michael Golding's lab cited in this piece (the scientist claiming a causal impact of paternal alcohol consumption on fetal outcomes) suffer from pseudoreplication issues. Treatment administered on sires, analysis conducted on pups without random effects.

Quentin André@quentinandre.bsky.social · 3w ago

Any statistican who has seen this before (insanely small p-values with small N) knows the most likely culprit: "Pseudoreplication", when non-independent observations are analyzed as if they were independent. Claude Opus 4.8 provides an exellent summary of the issue. 5/N

HBS' latest filing in the Gino lawsuit contains a few new details: 1. A committee of 26 professors, admins, and fellows reviewed the allegations, and *unanimously concluded* that there was *clear and convincing evidence* of research misconduct.

Hallucinate cites? Claims that contradict the content of the paper? Conspiratorial tone implying her program of research was silenced by shadow forces? Loose understanding of statistics? How can a rigorous scientist show such lapses in judgment? Unless...

Daniel Lakens@lakens.bsky.social · 2mo ago

New blog post: Evaluating Dr. Cuddy’s Claim that the Debunking of Power Posing is a Myth. daniellakens.blogspot.com/2026/05/eval... On an AI generated description of a non-existent study, incorrectly citing findings from studies, and the importance of scientific criticism.

"Reviewers... are going to become less tolerant of these “obvious” big mistakes now that they can be identified by a variety of cheap tools [GenAI review apps] prior to publication... The least we can do is ask them to review the best possible version..." via @quentinandre.bsky.social

What I Usually Flag in Reviews – Quentin André

I asked Claude to summarize five years of my own peer reviews comments. Here are the kind of issues I usually flag.

quentinandre.net

excellent piece, and should be required reading for anyone skeptical of the technical capabilities and policy implications of AI. there are certainly exceptions, but by and large, the political left is currently treating what should be a five-alarm fire like a distasteful spectator sport.

The left is missing out on AI

As a movement, it has largely refused to engage seriously with AI, ceding debate about a threat and opportunity to the right

transformernews.ai

After a popular psychological manipulation turns out to be non-replicable (e.g., "in a seemingly unrelated task" behavioral priming interventions), it is always fun to go back and find the papers who reported "p < 10e-8" effects. No, wait, it's not fun actually.

This hasn't received much attention, but it looks like scammers also hacked into Francesca Gino's MTurk account, and asked MTurkers to buy her book Rebel Talent to boost the first-week sales of the book. Poor lady cannot catch a break. (links in comments)

BildBildBildBild

An LLM-produced essay is tangible proof that a student doesn’t care, and yet responding to it properly requires hour upon hour of careful work. It’s asymmetrical and overwhelming.

Cheating with an LLM is the easiest thing in the world for a student to do, but it creates a massive, laborious headache for a prof, if you intend to take it seriously. There’s meetings, emails, discussions, moral dilemmas. It’s just incredibly burdensome, on top of everything else right now.

Corinne Gressang@corinnegressang.bsky.social · 9mo ago

I had 9 meetings about students using Chat GPT/LLMs on their papers today. If you want to know why professors burn out, ask anyone trying to teach critical thinking and writing skills to Freshmen....

Wait until you learn about common ways of doing segmentation analysis in marketing. "Yeah, we ran a K-means algorithm, gave each cluster a cute name and a persona, and now we're making every decision based on whether Pumpkin-Spice Peggy or Truck-Nut Terry will like it".

Julia M. Rohrer@dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 9mo ago

It’s astonishing how many researchers seem to believe that a cluster analysis is such a sensible analysis that it needn’t even be justified through a coherent research question. Just cluster analysis go brrrrr

If, as a reviewer, you see an unusual statistical test being reported in a manuscript, it never hurts to double-check whether the test does what the authors claim. Who knows, it might help a journal not publish inaccurate results.

Bild