The paper, as it stands, would still not be able to support its conclusions. What all of this comes down to is not that open science is good (it is tho!) or documentation helps (it might!). It's that it all comes down to design and inference. It's the science that ultimately matters.

No putting the diss back in discourse then?

I once had a conference talk downgraded to a poster, because the reviewer didn't believe we'd done random digit dialling and instead used a convenience sample. When I suggested that I wrote "random digit dialling" for a reason they came up with some other excuse

Or after you tag on a bus as they are getting off

I know a cartel law person, so might ask for this take tomorrow

I'm pretty sure I participated in that study actually! They were after people from all round the world

somebody did get around to replicating that study, but the original was conducted by mail, in like ?Michigan in the ?1960s, though I think it turned out not to be a terrible estimate

Our protocol is up now (though it doesn't have the finest detail of the searches in) osf.io/26kyd

had a fun* time exploring the stemming/lemmatization this morning

I'm not sure if you want to include it, but I liked your table so much I made a row for OpenAlex docs.google.com/document/d/1...