If replication is not an issue, then neither is preregistration. I imagine in pure modeling studies, this is the case. I assume peer review focuses on modeling constraints, validity and parsimony, rather than reliability of results. Open code is important for robustness though.
What aspect of crossval though do you see as being similar to prereg? Do you think they both serve the same role, of evaluating some aspect of an experiment or model?
-
-
For that, I agree. And I have said so before quite a few times on Twitter. For other potential parallels I'd have to hear more from you.
Thanks. 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.
TFW somebody really gets how you do science (AKA is also a modeller).
"We believe that a hypothesis-centric approach is too impoverished to provide the necessary resources for a formal theory of such open practices."