To be clear, only my first sentence were reactions to Registered Reports. The others were reactions to failed replications and replications discussions I think, and the final two were a reaction to publishing a critical peer review of a submitted article.
Todayâs ink studies. Replications of works by Chica Umino, Natalie Nourigat, Jilian Tamaki, Takehiko Inoue, Kenji Tsuruta och Hermann
Monkey Ladder Experiment (5 monkeys) by Stephenson (1967): What does it show? Solid? Chapter: mimeticmargins.com/wp-content/u...factschology.com/factschology... "Did it Happen?" So, opposite from common knowledge? Replications?
After many years of FREE-RIDING on labor of others, I'm now chairing the experiments section for MPSA. Call is below -- please send your experimental papers to section 59! "deadline" is October 8! www.mpsanet.org/conference/
However, this criterion treated replications that were larger and smaller than the confirmation as failures, about half of the failures were due to replications being larger than confirmatory studies for this. I commented on that in another thread but I am now realizing that I am bad at bsky search!
Caveat that I donât have full insight on everything, this is my personal recollection/perspective. There were (at least) three options. Are replications consistent w/ [1] the hypothesized discovery [2] the hypothesized discovery, only w/confirmation + [3] the confirmation, regardless of hypothesis
At joebakcoleman.com/blog/2024/pr... Joe shows that your choice of how to measure replications and power evolved over the course of the project such that almost every change made your conclusions look better. One explanation is data dredging. Do you have another one? The statement is silent on this.
These efforts -in this situation- may hurt Replications more than Democrats. (Most voters in NC are registered as independents.) Of the 994k registered eligible voters (active + inactive) in these zips as of last week, 22% are Democrats, 38% Republican, 37% Independents, %1 misc.
