Do you think if Bak-Coleman and Devezer had kept their powder dry, the original authors would have initiated a correction to NHB about the preregistration problem?
Off to teach our MSc Health students about Open Science, armed with prepregistration templates to compare & contrast! 🤩 #OpenResearch#Preregistration#OpenScience
Preprint More Than Box-ticking? Assessing Preregistration Quality in Psychological Research osf.io/preprints/os...
“Preregistration and associated documents are available on our OSF project page [link]”
Yes, there are lots of interesting substantive critiques (causation, pilot stuff, what is right way to measure replicability). The posted statement is only trying to own the preregistration errors (serious, not minor IMO), and clarify some inaccurate descriptions of the project origins and goals.
This is entirely correct. Bret seems fixated on disclosing the apparent lack of preregistration but fails to note that the authors failure to engage with the more alarming substance is *sufficient* to justify going forward.
This latest preregistration drama is becoming pretty nasty and almost completely unintelligible for an outsider. Perhaps a public forum like Bluesky is really not the right place for these kinds of exchanges.
that could clearly challenge the assumption. What's the point of comparison? I believe it's not messy, nontransparent research but research that is honest, open, thoughtful, without necessarily adhering to that specific intervention. E.g., lab notebooks vs. preregistration.