Actual question, do you think preregistering basically this would be a useful thing to be able to show reviewers? IE "I am about to collect this dataset for exploratory purposes, stamped April 27, The Past."
We're in agreement. My point is that it seems people think new tools/methods, like prereg make it harder to cheat/game the system, but it certainly doesn't seem that way to me.
-
-
I don't think it makes it harder for an unethical person to cheat, I think it makes it easier/more standardized for an ethical person to report the features of their work that make it more credible.
-
And it's not and never was designed to stop fraud. What it does do is push a lot of grey practices that academics do now over a line so that doing them in the context of prereg would be fraud.
-
In my ideal world, a reviewer pressuring someone to add unwarranted confirmatory tests would be like a reviewer pressuring someone to claim a larger N. (Not like, to go collect more data, like 'These results would sound better if you had 60 subjects, why don't you write that?)
-
Agreed. Prereg achieves this because forcing HARKing on to an author who preregistered would be forcing them to lie.
-
I'm glad you agree but I'm still concerned many don't get it (for whatever reason — it's not a nuanced point IMHO).
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.