“Sure, the paper on the benefits of preregistration wasn’t preregistered and sure it was outcome-switched and sure it took an ECR a year to sort it out and sure he got doxxed for his troubles, but this just proves its point bc w/o preregistration we wouldn’t know it was flawed” is a hell of a take.
Who is this subtweeting?
Like other wrong research, I guess it neither proves nor disproves the point.
I also think it is kind of a fallacy to discredit the open science proposals because a bunch of researchers did not practice what they preached. That debacle of a study does not provide evidence supporting open practices, but I fail to see how it provides evidence against them.
As far as the paper's claims go, no one is disagreeing that they are not supported by the study. But would the job of identifying and proving the issues be easier ir harder without preregistration? It is a shitty study, but it does serve as a case study 🤷