People might have been used to following a hypothesis testing script in their papers, and now need to learn how to write an exploratory paper. Journals will need to learn how to evaluate these papers. We can learn from papers in the 50's which were often much more exploratory.
-
-
Compsci is a great example. The parts of psychology that are closer to compsci (e.g., that are testing computation models or using a data-driven approach) aren't well-served by either RRs or the journal-based publication model in general.
-
Yes, obviously. Something I've been saying on Twitter for years.
-
The tweet of yours I linked to comes off as saying that publications should all be RRs? But like I said above and you just also repeated, you have changed your perspective since you posted that.
-
It's less that I've changed my perspective and more that I'm aware others don't find it obvious that the RR model mostly applies to research in a hypothesis-testing framework so I'm trying to be clearer.
-
Right. A shift in rhetoric. Like I said.
-
Either way you and others in this thread have slowly but surely lost loads of math psych people and/or modelers. I'm interested to see how this will continue as it's caused IMHO quite a deep rift. I was literally just saying the other day that the field seems to be splitting.
-
I just hired a modeller as a post-doc for the next 4 years.
-
Not sure that changes my point.
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.