a plug for Metalab - provides Interactive tools for community-augmented meta-analysis, power analysis, and experimental planning in cognitive development research http://metalab.stanford.edu/about.html #OpenScienceIMC
While in non-dev labs I have worked in before and since, there is no secret cache of "this is what doesn't replicate" from empirical stuff, it's done publically nowadays... and I am asking if this is a thing or just me? Hence why I tagged @chbergma...https://twitter.com/o_guest/status/1105900205457707009 …
-
-
Is the reason there is "no big scandal in Dev Sci" because there are many scandals they just don't surface and so uptake of open- and replication-related practises is so fast because you all speak about this in private?
-
Do you get my question now,
@ivanflis? -
Yup yup, I get it now. Interested to hear what the answer of the dev peeps is going to be. :)
-
No idea, and I must say I speak from a tiny corner of the field. I know there are cases of attemts to disprove each other etc, but that's different. In most cases I know there are debates and a mixed literature, not cases of 'don't touch textbook study x'
-
And I also was talking about massive things like the dead salmon paper that made menat least question half of neuroscience, which is different from being wary of single studies / phenomena...
-
(Urgh, I broke my thread) What does happen, but what I think is not special, are file-drawered failed attempts to replicate, but that is true afaik across fields, so it also doesn't fit the bill... There is a sound symbolism meta-analysis with a lot of unpublished studies eg
-
Thanks and yes, that makes sense!
End of conversation
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.