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?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I fully agree. It is worrisome. These days "theory" and "modeling" seems to superficially look like a QRP.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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 :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
My take is in the OP. Most of the most active
#openscience advocates disagree with it. That is part of the problem.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
The replication crisis and the rise of open science in psychology coincided to make a fucking mess for this specific issue.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Good point. That may have indeed been an unfortunate confluence of events.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Isn't the open science movement a reaction to the replication crisis? (Maybe I misunderstood what you said, but it sounded a bit like that was coincidental)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
-
Possibly the (mis)perception in psych that indeed OS is a response to the replication crisis, and serves that purpose specifically, is part of what is now creating these problems that I am alluding to?
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
That was my point above, so yes, we agree.
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.