I've read through this paper a couple times and started looking at its data.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06767-1
I'm predicting it now before I get further into reviewing this: this paper is wrong for all the reasons you'd suspect and isn't going to hold up to any scrutiny.
But managers and non-scientists everywhere are going to use it to reign in remote workers and say that it's "supported by the science".
After reviewing "Remote collaboration fuses fewer breakthrough ideas" more thoroughly, I believe it should be retracted. Here is a write-up of why this is the case:
@calderds Hey Calder, thank you! Nice to hear from you again.
Hahah, understanding linear models is important! But that is probably one of the least problematic things about this paper. The causal graphs, the confounding, the proxy variables and relationships - that's where the meat is.
If I can continue being your biostats TA for a bit longer, go watch this lecture series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdnMWdICdRs&list=PLDcUM9US4XdPz-KxHM4XHt7uUVGWWVSus
And go read this book: http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/
James Hawley, PhD
Calder Sheagren