Many of us have been commenting on this (@IrisVanRooij, @djnavarro, @o_guest, myself, and others) but typically receive backlash. Now that an insider to psych OS movement is making the same point, maybe it’ll be received with more appreciation. Here’s to hoping
https://twitter.com/PsyBrief/status/1102890288467623936 …
-
-
Replying to @zerdeve @IrisVanRooij and
Brilliant (Olivia, would smt like this make a nice controversial talk to MPCers, or it's all hunky dory here bec. of Gatsby?)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @M_Moutoussis @zerdeve and
I can't speak for the other women tagged of course but I feel like Berna has two papers out on this already see: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.10118.pdf … and https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.04525.pdf … — do I understand correctly what you mean by "this" here?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @M_Moutoussis and
Iris and Danielle have blogged about it here: https://featuredcontent.psychonomic.org/psychological-science-needs-theory-development-before-preregistration/ … and here:https://featuredcontent.psychonomic.org/prediction-pre-specification-and-transparency/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
The OP though here is more about Twitter discussions than papers/talks, but of course they are all relevant. Are we on the same page?
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.