<p>This turned out to be too long for a comment so it is an attempt now to answer the last two questions.</p>

<p>The examples which occur to me are ones where the OP has conducted a project where human subjects have been subjected to at best inconvenience and at worst the possibility of harm and the OP clearly has absolutely no idea of what to do with the data and so in my view should never have been allowed to start the project. If the results are published with defective analysis subsequent patients may be harmed too. Such studies in most jurisdictions should have had prior ethical approval of course but ethics committees often lack statistical expertise. In most of these cases I think the existing flags are sufficient (unclear, too broad, ...). I would not want to bother the moderators with an extra burden here.</p>
