Enter your Email:
Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

« bitter carrots* | Main | Guest post by Alexa Tullett: a not-so-hypothetical HIBAR »

Comments

Marcus Crede

Thanks for writing this! This - like many of your other posts - will be required reading for the grad students in the methods course I teach this fall.

Rob

One of the numerous examples when bad methodology kills a whole paper (in this case it at least has received a critical analysis):
https://pubpeer.com/publications/B052DE668A4DA0B8D5644343BEE1D4

Anonymous

"or join collaborative projects that pool resources to tackle the really hard, important questions, and find a way to deal with the issue of spreading credit around. "

I am a bit worried that large-scale "collaborative" projects like the Psychological Science Accelerator might not be a very good idea due to several reasons. One of which might be that way too many resources are possibly unnecessarily spent.

Also see: "More data is always better but enough is enough"
https://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2014/12/more-data-is-always-better-but-enough.html

(side note I: perhaps the 1st comment on Lakens' blogpost there could point to an interesting way to possibly investigate when "enough is enough". I am not skilled to do that myself, but i still think it could be easily done by someone interested in these issues like yourself or readers of this relevant blogpost, and could perhaps even be considered to be intersting/useful enough to warrent a paper or blogpost)

(side note II: thank you for pointing to Studyswap as i reason that could be used in a way that will be a) truly collaborative, b) not entail many (possible) problematic issues like the Psychological Science Accelerator potentially has, and c) a much better way to accelerate psychological science)

Anonymous

"I am a bit worried that large-scale "collaborative" projects like the Psychological Science Accelerator might not be a very good idea due to several reasons."

For some of these (possibly) other problematic issues with the "Psychological Science Accelerator" see here:

https://andrewgelman.com/2018/05/08/what-killed-alchemy/#comment-728154

Side note: as far as i can reason, StudySwap doesn't have any of these (possibly) problematic issues.

Anonymous

For some of these (possibly) other problematic issues with the "Psychological Science Accelerator", and a place to discuss them, possibly also see here:

https://andrewgelman.com/2018/06/26/psychological-science-accelerator-probably-good-idea-im-still-skeptical/

No One

But the incentives are to publish your creative ideas and designs first! Let someone else come along later with the resources to actually conduct the rigorous, ideal experiment, and you'll get the citations and career boost

Anonymous

"But the incentives are to publish your creative ideas and designs first! Let someone else come along later with the resources to actually conduct the rigorous, ideal experiment, and you'll get the citations and career boost"

The "incentives", lol. Can you point me to actual research about if, why, and how these "incentives" actually influence(d) things? I mean there must have been done lots, and lots, of research into "the incentives" because it seems to be all i hear about. Wouldn't that be useful to investigate before coming up with all kinds of "solutions" that are supposed to influence all these "incentives".

The problem i have with talking about "incentives" is that it is an indirect term for other things that in turn could stop you from 1) really thinking about things, and 2) could therefore result in coming up with an entire new set of "incentives" and/or "solutions" which may not even be good for science.

Just take the Psychological Science Accelerator, and compare it to the alternative of small-group collaborations, in the following discussion and try and spot where they might differ, and how, and why, that could be useful if you want to improve Psychological Science:

https://andrewgelman.com/2018/06/26/psychological-science-accelerator-probably-good-idea-im-still-skeptical/

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)