Cherry picking?


Active Member
From a paper - "When analyses were conducted to compare total plate coverage across the three sites (A vs. B vs. C) the observed differences were not significant (p > 0.1). However, when sites A and B were grouped to compare the impact (site C) vs. reference sites it became apparent that coverage was significantly lower on impacted plates (p = 0.026)"
Is this cherry picking?


TS Contributor
Unless they had pre-specified in a manner you can verify, there isn't an obvious reason to group A and B or whatever they did. @Karabiner is likely on the money they were just digging until they hit a rock to paint and call gold.


New Member
Well, do they give any reason at all to conjugate group A and B? If this is arbitrary, then the result seems arbitrary too. Maybe A and B have enough similarities that they could be turned into one single group, but that highly depends on the context.