This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
STeamTraen (talk·contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
A fact from GRIM test appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 October 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that a GRIM test on a sample of published psychology articles revealed that over half contained at least one mathematically impossible result?
Hello, Smurrayinchester, and thanks for creating this great page! James and I are flattered!
A thought: the last sentence of the first paragraph currently ends with "following increased awareness of the replication crisis in some fields of science." That doesn't feel quite right. Clearly there is some kind of link with the replication crisis, but the latter is mostly about bad research practices, whereas GRIM is more about problems in scientific reporting in general, ranging from minor sloppiness to outright fraud --- which are both arguably orthogonal to replicability. We're not aware of any relation between GRIM problems and replicability (I am actually involved in a project to test this at the moment, but I'm not expecting a huge correlation). So maybe that sentence could be improved, but I'm not sure how, and I hate trampling over other people's work without good reason, especially since I agree with James (https://twitter.com/jamesheathers/status/921350809161555968) that you have done a first-class job here.
