The misunderstandings are striking. As are the responses against very balanced recommendations to use pre-registration. Show me anyone who says all published articles should be pre-registered. No one ever has, yet this is now suggested. Disappointing.
-
-
Replying to @lakens
To me these are all new tools/possibilities that recently became available to strengthen your research. Time to educate yourself and decide which tools you want to use
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TjeerdWBoonstra @lakens
In his 1998 HARKing paper, Kerr cites some numbers on this from an empirical study he ran but that I think never got published (maybe the paper didn't have enough hypotheses?)pic.twitter.com/fyDOvs9YzE
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ Retweeted Lisa DeBruine 🏳️🌈
Hmmm. I'm not sure that's true,
@lakens... For example, how do you interpret this tweet: https://twitter.com/robustgar/status/1043453476397834241?s=19 …? Or this one: https://twitter.com/lisadebruine/status/1043477114903773184?s=19 …?Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ added,
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Thanks for illustrating the misunderstanding people have voiced! This is not even remotely an argument to pre-register everything. You can submit a RR saying you will only do exploratory analyses (there is even an explicit exploratory RR
@chrisdc77). RR's prevent publication bias1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @lakens @annemscheel and
So more of a communications issue in your opinion then, I see. I guess that's actually really important because not even a disagreement can really be reached without communication and understanding. FWIW some of those in that thread have since decided to dial back their rhetoric.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That’s a really puzzling thread to bring up in this discussion and I agree doing so really highlights the core misunderstanding that I have seen at the heart of the discussions over the last few days.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
First, the tweet explicitly says that non preregistered work should be published. Second, and as
@Lakens notes, it is absolutely not the case that the RR format is only for confirmatory research.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
TBH I'm puzzled by a lot of your threads. And I think it's correct that comms between us (communities of researches within psych/neuro) is indeed broken/breaking down.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
To be blunt, they’d make sense to you if you’d stop thinking that these suggestions are an attempt to impose a confirmatory framework on everyone. It’s been explained repeatedly that they aren’t, so it’s getting harder and harder to believe your claim to be arguing in good faith.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
Interesting perspective. Why and how do you think it would serve me to argue in bad faith?
-
-
I don't think the disagreement is really necessary here. Something went wrong somewhere in the communication, and I think both of you agree on most issues.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.