Ran a preregistered 🤫, high-powered 💪, very close replication ✌️with open data 💿, materials 🧱, etc. Submitted it to the journal that published the original paper….

Result? 🫣🫣🫣

Desk reject…. ⛔️

“not a good fit for the journal, and instead seems better suited for a specialty journal”

🤷‍♀️ 🤷 🤷‍♂️ Why does the publication system need changing again? 🤷‍♀️🤷🤷‍♂️

#replication #power #opendata #openmaterials #researchculture #journal #academia

I asked, is this a formal policy, like a reverse pottery barn rule? The answer… “we do not publish replication only projects”

“We will update our website journal accordingly after a formal policy” but no clear commitment or timeframe.

I just think of the brilliant students who worked hard on this project, going way above and beyond their peers in learning how to do everything “open” and hustling to meet sample size targets. Then I have to tell them this result.

And I think of all my colleagues and students I speak to about scientific reform. We’ve made such amazing progress in such a small amount of time, and yet, we still have so far to go. And here’s a reminder of just that.