3 ms·

The point, I think, is that it means something slightly different to per-register an hypothesis that depends on retrospective data. When you register to hypothe

The point, I think, is that it means something slightly different to per-register an hypothesis that depends on retrospective data. When you register to hypothesis, the data already exist and one could (in theory) have already started looking at it. One would hope that researchers would not explicitly cheat like this, but it would be hard for experts in the fields to not have some sense of the trends seen within their field prior to running the meta analysis.

escherplex 8y ago
Yeah but of course hypotheses don't arise ex nihilo but from a catalog of focused perceptions catalyzing conceptions which may suggest hypotheses encompassing novel ordering functions, innovations, ameliorations (or whatnot) depending on the field of study. If an individual considers a hypothesis of sufficient potential pragmatic value to research and document then, objectively, if negative results manifest these too need be reported as negative data germane to other researchers in the field. Problem is current academic culture is predisposed to reward only success. If your beautiful theory is murdered by an ugly fact (Huxley) then you don't get your doctorate or your departmental status diminishes since only positive results are reinforced. From this arises the temptation to be disingenuous or outright prevaricate, if you can get away with it. Does seem a cultural change is in order. Registering hypotheses which guarantees publication regardless of results may be useful.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> One would hope that researchers would not explicitly cheat like this The broad problem isn’t cheating, it’s people not publishing null results. That applies equally to experiments and meta-analyses.
- aidenn0 8y ago
  Except a null result would have been interesting here.
- akvadrako 8y ago
  What the poster above meant is that if you do a meta-analysis on already published results you could already know if it's a null result or not. If you are inclined to not publish null results, you simply won't "preregister". Of course to be a proper study they should pre-register and only report on future publications.
- jeremyjh 8y ago
  You are right about what the problem is, but cheating in this context would mean registering a hypothesis after you've already looked at the data and assured yourself you'll get a positive result. That in my mind is even worse than current status-quo.
- danaris 8y ago
  Both are problems. Both are addressed by pre-registration.

escherplex 8y ago

Yeah but of course hypotheses don't arise ex nihilo but from a catalog of focused perceptions catalyzing conceptions which may suggest hypotheses encompassing novel ordering functions, innovations, ameliorations (or whatnot) depending on the field of study. If an individual considers a hypothesis of sufficient potential pragmatic value to research and document then, objectively, if negative results manifest these too need be reported as negative data germane to other researchers in the field. Problem is current academic culture is predisposed to reward only success. If your beautiful theory is murdered by an ugly fact (Huxley) then you don't get your doctorate or your departmental status diminishes since only positive results are reinforced. From this arises the temptation to be disingenuous or outright prevaricate, if you can get away with it. Does seem a cultural change is in order. Registering hypotheses which guarantees publication regardless of results may be useful.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> One would hope that researchers would not explicitly cheat like this The broad problem isn’t cheating, it’s people not publishing null results. That applies equally to experiments and meta-analyses.

aidenn0 8y ago
Except a null result would have been interesting here.
akvadrako 8y ago
What the poster above meant is that if you do a meta-analysis on already published results you could already know if it's a null result or not. If you are inclined to not publish null results, you simply won't "preregister". Of course to be a proper study they should pre-register and only report on future publications.
jeremyjh 8y ago
You are right about what the problem is, but cheating in this context would mean registering a hypothesis after you've already looked at the data and assured yourself you'll get a positive result. That in my mind is even worse than current status-quo.
danaris 8y ago
Both are problems. Both are addressed by pre-registration.