HARking occurs during model building. E.g. people change their hypotheses about model mechanisms and do incremental adjustments until they're happy with the model fit to the data.
-
-
Replying to @GunnarBlohm @IrisVanRooij and
That's just model building. All models are built based on data. How else would you do it?
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @bradpwyble @GunnarBlohm and
I think this is any interesting question. I agree iterating on models is part of the process, but valuable info is lost if those iterations aren't reported in the paper and only the final product is
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @neurograce @bradpwyble and
Yes - so a final report that includes information about failed iterations would achieve the same purpose as a pre-reg in this case, if @GunnaerBlohm's goal is to prevent HARking?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @venpopov @neurograce and
But you don't need to test the predictions in the paper that published the model initially. Save that for later.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @bradpwyble @venpopov and
I agree with this position, but generally I have found it hard to get models published without empirical tests. It seems that reviewers tend to underestimate the scientific contribution of coming up with a model that generates/explains key phenomena in the first place.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @IrisVanRooij @bradpwyble and
Couldn't agree more. I have never been able to publish a model without accompanying new empirical data and it is a major barrier to theoretical work.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @tom_hartley @IrisVanRooij and
... actually this is an exaggeration. One paper was pure modelling, but we were initially asked us to run experiments.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tom_hartley @bradpwyble and
Iris van Rooij Retweeted Iris van Rooij
I believe this requirement that a new model should always be *directly* testable in experiments prevents us from exploring the full range of models/mechanisms. For some non-trivial theory it may take a long time to think up a way to (critically) test it:https://twitter.com/IrisVanRooij/status/1049617343767302150 …
Iris van Rooij added,
Iris van Rooij @IrisVanRooijDistinction between 'a theory being testable in principle" versus "being able to think of a *concrete* experiment to test the theory' is important, because too often if exp psychologists can't think of an experiment right away they think the theory is at fault. (cc@annemscheel) https://twitter.com/maxcoltheart/status/1049607054162182144 …1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @IrisVanRooij @bradpwyble and
There's a surplus of unexplained data, if we can explain some of it, while accommodating existing phenomena, the model's ready to publish IMO.
1 reply 2 retweets 5 likes
My lab basically does that. Nobody has collected any data in 2 years.
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.