Emil O W Kirkegaard

That's a good question. I think the journal describes itself as having "open peer review"?

Carl's use of the "Religion of Peace" website as a source of info on Islamist terrorism does raise questions IMO -- the site is known to be fairly loose with definitions of "terrorism."

I am interested in an expanded take on those two points of critique.

1. What more precisely is the problem with Open Psych? I assume it would be ok for Noah Carl to write a blog post with the same content. But it can't really be worse for having been looked at by other people also.

I also assume it is not bad to make an attempt to develop and support new ways of scientific publishing, given the huge problems with the current system.

So then, what exactly is the issue. Is the critique that Noah Carl has claimed these publications were something they are not? If so, has he made such a claim?

He chose (1). It is not clear to me that this is preferable to (2). What if we assume the data is highly correlated to the real numbers and his finding is true? Can we then accept a situation where he is fired, while there are no repercussions for non-replicable studies?

The tiring thing about this is the constant need to litigate every choice in minute detail, rather than to consider the sum of decisions in aggregate. But go hum. Let me try. No there is no issue with open peer review as a potential alternative system, when implemented along...