Ideally, we'd all do this all the time, I agree. But I think most journals have a slight bias towards having you report what works rather than what did not. I can only read what someone publishes but not the report they write for their funding agency.
-
-
I agree—just pointing out that this isn’t too much extra work.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I'm not sure that I agree. There's a substantial difference between the kind of reporting one does at the end of a grant and publishing papers about what doesn't work. The two are written for different audiences.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Fair enough. I guess it depends how thorough one’s final reports are.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dajmeyer @bradpwyble and
How do you preregister computational modelling work?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Trueblood made very clear that not all work can or should be pre-registered and that exploratory work is essential. She presented this mostly in the context of pitching existing models against each other and/or using computational models as measurement tools.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
That's fair. I'm genuinely interested how you can preregistrer a computational experiment though in any context.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I feel strange speaking for her but I don't think she's on Twitter. Her keynote yesterday was an example (she said) of work that could have been pre-reg'ed b/c they sat out to test a set of models on a number of datasets.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Fair enough. My flight to Madison just got cancelled so I might not get a chance to ask her.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
I wasn't expecting you to speak for her BTW. I was asking you.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
And indeed anybody who wants to join in. 
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.