I think the hardline 'full blown registered reports or bust' stance isn't productive. As you say, this kind of modelling would actually benefit from a more customized framework that maximized transparency while not constraining you to untenable assumptions.
It's part of a series of things people have said with very extreme views. Otherwise why do you think @bradpwyble and @micahgallen think what we think?
-
-
I think you're under the impression that if we don't dedicate hours trawling through tweets to defend our opinion on this that we are by definition wrong. But I actually have a day job as do others and twitter is nasty to search. If you haven't felt the vibe, well, that's fine.
-
Also I think you think if you follow me around every time I comment on this that you will exhaust me and I'll stop saying that the rhetoric recently flipped. Sealioning me over this is hilarious.
-
IMHO that tweet (and thread) you linked me linked to is a great example.
-
Nobody can say how those two tweets should be interpreted. You're saying they are not how I read them. Tell us how you read them.

-
That all work should be published (it says that explicitly) but that if there is a place for journals and pre-pub peer review it is providing the administrative infrastructure for RRs (which aren’t only for confirmatory testing).
-
Many people have clarified these points to you now, including several on the thread you linked to.
-
You are pretty clearly being disingenuous with your bad-faith take that this is some sort push to impose confirmatory testing on everyone, since you’ve kept going with that interpretation even when people have explicitly said it isn’t and have explained what it is.
- 35 more replies
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.
