Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circular analysis

Circular analysis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD: "Appears to be a neologism used in this sense only by Kriegeskorte and his collaborators to describe a longstanding habit in scientific malpractice." Illia Connell (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The term seems to be in use in sufficiently wide scholarly circles. Kriegskorte's use of the term is discussed here, for example, and a number of journal articles. Deltahedron (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept is a form of circular reasoning or begging the question, which has been common in this field, as discussed in Foundational Issues of Human Brain Mapping. Kriegeskorte's presentation of the issue seems influential, e.g. "Kriegeskorte and their colleagues deserve unending commendation...". Warden (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is unclear whether this topic is similar enough to any other articles to be merged into. This [review] highlights the topic's importance and suggests it may be a version of selection bias, but it is unclear whether that article uses the term in the same way. 81.98.35.149 (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge (seems quite plausible) as original prodder; I've taken a look at such references included above as I can, and I find nothing to indicate the phrase is in wide useage. Certainly the concept is significant (and well understood to anybody who's ever observed a freshman lab at work) - I would support a merge ~~to something like Selection bias, but this does seem to have a different twist than the standard bias, and so may not be a good merge target~~ to something like Testing hypotheses suggested by the data, below Ray^Talk 02:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of "the concept is significant" and "does seem to have a different twist" sounds like an argument for a separate article? Deltahedron (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more concerned that this is a very old concept, certainly older than Kriegskorte's papers, and I've only seen it called "circular analysis" in recent years. Back in school, we called it "adjusting the data to fit the model." Ray^Talk 18:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google scholar gives 563 citations for the nature paper[1]. Highly infulential. Also happy with a merge.--Salix (talk): 07:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Testing hypotheses suggested by the data, leaving a disambiguation page that also points to Directional statistics. Devoting an article to a new term for an old concept would give it undue weight. Statisticians have been thinking about these issues for ages - see Exploratory data analysis, Data dredging, Post-hoc analysis and Multiple comparisons. Judging by searches on Google Scholar, both "circular inference" and "double dipping" were first used for this concept in 2007 (Baker, C. I., et al. "Circular inference in neuroscience: The dangers of double dipping." annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, San Diego, CA. 2007). Before that, "circular inference" mainly applied to analysis of directional data - hence the need for a disambiguation page. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Testing hypotheses suggested by the data. Circular statistics is what I thought of when I saw the title. I agree that this concept has been around a long time, with some neuroscientists rediscovering it for themselves just recently. I think it is worth a mention as an alternative term in Testing hypotheses suggested by the data, but not more. --Mark viking (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase testing hypotheses suggested by the data is not a catchy title and that article is not well supported by sources which verify the usage as anything more than a general phrase. Post-hoc analysis seems more succinct but, again, the references in that article do not support the usage as a title. Warden (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not a catchy title, and the article needs work. Maybe the statistical community doesn't have a technical term for it - in which case a non-catchy title that clearly describes the subject is appropriate. To keep this article is to imply that some neuroscientists have done anything more than explain a well-known concept to a new community. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]