The ManyBabies project: one benefit is the community building sidehttps://osf.io/rpw6d/
-
-
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 There is a sound symbolism meta-analysis with a lot of unpublished studies eg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 -
-
-
What was the reaction to David Peterson's paper a few years back? It struck me as fairly scathing at the time:https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023115625071 …
-
I must admit I forgot about this one, but I think some papers in this special issue might be considered a response https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15327078/22/4 … The conclusions were quite damning indeed, but one question was whether it was representative of real practices.
-
P.S. I got curious and looking at publication dates, the ManyBabies idea precedes the paper: http://babieslearninglanguage.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-manybabies-project.html … Which is in line with my memory, yay. It might have been a nudge for journals to adopt RRs, I wouldn't deny that.
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.