Note that per Table A1...A3, the authors replace the explanatory variable with noise in every study except in the Mita study, for which they only make their point for the dependent variable. Also, the Mita study isn’t present in Figure 8. Not sure why that is.
spatial autocorrelations of residuals are unaccounted for and might make noise look significant
So I sort of understand this point, but not enough to understand if the construction of the noise makes sense.
In any case, yeah, it looks like it was less robust than I thought.
Note that per Table A1...A3, the authors replace the explanatory variable with noise in every study except in the Mita study, for which they only make their point for the dependent variable. Also, the Mita study isn’t present in Figure 8. Not sure why that is.
So I sort of understand this point, but not enough to understand if the construction of the noise makes sense.
In any case, yeah, it looks like it was less robust than I thought.