Mastodawn

I keep coming back to the "Things Could be Better" paper (https://psyarxiv.com/2uxwk/). The clarity and straightforwardness of the paper also create more transparency. Slap on a related work section as an appendix, and this is how we should all be publishing...

I also think writing that focus on clarity, transparency and straightforwardness as key strategies, is a better bulwark against chatGPT-generated papers. Sure, you can train a bot to write like that, but I suspect it would be easier to spot

Show thread

James Eagan Feb 10, 2023

@heenrik I hadn’t seen this before, such a lovey article, beautiful clarity. Do you know if it’s been formally published anywhere?

It’s a great example of clarity, but I’d love to see expert reviewers’ impressions. Is it too informal (imprecise) for domain experts or is it just in a different voice? Regardless of the answer, it’s a lovely article.

Show thread

Henrik Korsgaard Feb 23, 2023

@eaganj AFAIK it's "only" published on psyarxiv. But aside from the tone, they share data and have preregistered the study.

An expert review would be insightful in terms of what the language does in terms of expert communication.

Still, if more papers reached that level of clarity, I would sacrifice a bit on domain-speak.