All good points. The replication value formula we propose makes some pretty extreme assumptions. Does that render the formula useless? Is there a way to improve it that does not compromise the feasibility of carrying out computations? I am not sure! But I welcome commentaries on all these issues :)
All thoughts, criticisms, or suggestions for improvements on our proposed strategy are most welcome! There is currently not much discussion of which studies to prioritize for replication (given resource constraints). Hopefully, this special issue can help change that!
The target paper is written by me, @annaveer.bsky.social@lakens.bsky.socialosf.io/preprints/me... In it, we propose to use a combination of citation count and sample size to identify which claims in a field are the most important to replicate.
Interested in replication research? Consider writing a commentary for the next special issue in Meta-Psychology which will publish critiques of the article "Replication value as a function of citation impact and sample size": open.lnu.se/index.php/me...
Touché! But yes, guilty as charged. Amazing initiative btw. Could you DM me your contact liat so I can refer to them as well? 😇
Aha, so that's where they're coming from ;)
Anyone feeling qualified to review (psych) papers that use equivalence tests (i.e., review with a focus on the equivalence tests)? I get too many requests and don’t know who to recommend other than @lakens.bsky.social@isager.bsky.social (who probably have the same problem)
“Causal inference is not just a statistics problem” New article by @lucystats.bsky.social@travisgerke.bsky.social@malcolmbarrett.malco.iodoi.org/10.1080/2693...#Stats#DataScience 🧪
I'm thrilled to announce the new Psych Science editor team! We'll start on Jan 1, 2024. Check us out: here: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/psychological_science/2024-editorial-board We're spread across 15 countries in 5 continents! 🌍🌎🌏 Here’s a thread to introduce the team!