3 ms·

The problem really is: there is no alternative (which I know of). Having a number of papers in well known journals is everything we have to gauge the quality of

• pas 8y ago
  No, the number of papers is an okay metric, thr problem is that journals don't like to publish honest negative results
  • Jeff_Brown 8y ago
    There are a few journals that will promise to publish your results based entirely on your pre-registered plan -- e.g. whether or not you find the correlation you were looking for. In the long term, it seems like journals that publish lots of falsified papers should be punished, and journals that don't (e.g. because of a judge-upon-pre-registration policy) should crowd them out.
    • pas 8y ago
      Pre-registration is great, and I think it even helps researchers/scientists/post-docs to submit something (it doesn't have to be perfect, after all, it's just an experiment design, and they don't have to worry about massaging the data to have promising results to report) and then stick to the topic, and then carry out the experiment as well as they can, and gather as much high quality & fidelity data as they can, and do the analysis according to the plan, and then report it. No extra pressure to think about how to frame what you "found". Though this will inevitably lead to the problem that grant boards face, that it'll be a lot harder to differentiate between proposed experiments. And it'll be even harder to do boring stuff. (So if we assume all submitted plans are sound, they have to publish them all. Though then we'll have journals based on how strict they are with experiment design requirements, 1 sigma, 2 sigma, 5 sigma, etc.)