Seems apropos to give this message a reboost in current #openscience climate & seeing that even editors of purported theoretical psych journals do not get this point anymore:https://twitter.com/irisvanrooij/status/966967829873471488?s=21 …
Very roughly, I would say that's a misplaced claim as modellers are highly likely to do open science.
-
-
I was just responding to Iris’s report that editors are asking to remove models im the name of open science, and her statement that open science could be throwing back psychology.
-
I'll let Iris clarify, but I suspect she means a specific brand of open science. Other fields, for example, do not have the specific type of very very empirical non-modeling take on open science that our field has taken.
-
Indeed. As said "I agree ofc,
#openscience if *done well* does not obstruct theoretical progress. But in current practice it does." That is my point. -
Current practice is dominated by empiricist voices and concerns that clearly are having this negative side-effect. And I am trying to draw attention to the damaging effects that is has and really, I believe, will set our science back by decades.
-
This is super weird. Why would anyone/ any journal think this?
-
I fully agree. It is worrisome. These days "theory" and "modeling" seems to superficially look like a QRP.
-
How? Genuinely curious for your take, I can’t see it (I say coming off a morning finishing revisions on the deepest theory cut I’ve ever done :)
-
My take is in the OP. Most of the most active
#openscience advocates disagree with it. That is part of the problem. - 2 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.