This week, the touchstone paper purporting to show that there are replicability benefits of preregistration was retracted. For me this highlights a long-running disagreement I've had with core CoS strategy. I like the idea of making things possible, easy, and rewarding.
But before making something normative let along required, I want to be very certain that (1) it will be useful in the domains where it is required, not just in the domain where it was developed, and (2) there is ample empirical evidence that it is effective.
Do you have a link to the retraction?
From the perspective of visual bullshitology: Any layered triangular diagram with arbitrary labels should be suspicious from the start, due to resemblance with "stages" of "enlightenment", in made up "pyramids", ranging from ancient mystery cults, & modern Ponzi schemes, to "effective altruism".
And if I understand correctly, it was retracted because it’s central conclusions we’re not included in its preregistration.
There is another paper suggesting that prereg could improve replicability but we cannot conclude anything: journals.plos.org/plosone/arti.... However, I still think it is not "easy" to do that kind of stuff.
Introduction Previous studies about the replicability of clinical research based on the published literature have suggested that highly cited articles are often contradicted or found to have inflated ...