A paper in Psychological Science was taking a beating on Twitter last month. https://twitter.com/lakens/status/1004119102485614592 In this post, I'm not going to talk about the paper itself but rather, about how it came to be published and how preregistration - a concept I have long advocated - may be being misused. The paper reports on five studies which all address the same general question. Of these, Study #3 was preregistered and the authors write that it was performed after the other four had been completed. It was also larger than the others. The results of Study #3 closely matched the other studies'. So far, so good. However, according to Daniël Lakens on Twitter (I'm not sure how he knows this), Study #3 was conducted on the instruction of the editors (during peer review): https://twitter.com/lakens/status/1004320676206047232 Now, this is where alarm bells started ringing for me. If Psychological Science asked the authors of ...
What Is Preregistration For?
Explore the critique of preregistration in research and its role in combating publication bias and p-hacking in studies.
More on Discover
Stay Curious
SubscribeTo The Magazine
Save up to 40% off the cover price when you subscribe to Discover magazine.
Subscribe