Jonas Lang

@jlang
381 Followers
404 Following
39 Posts
Work and Organizational Psychologist based in Ghent, Belgium.
@lakens From Paul Meehl's autobiography: 'Ben Willerman once asked me, “Paul, you are so fascinated by Freud’s
theory of dream work and tell us persuasive stories from your psychoanalytic practice.
Why haven’t you done any experiments to test it?” To which I replied (shockingly but
honestly), “Ben, it’s because I don’t know how!”' https://meehl.umn.edu/sites/meehl.umn.edu/files/files/139autobiography.pdf
@lakens ...I understood that this paper is more criticizing "sexy" underpowered short reports. The problem with multiple studies is that the larger the number of studies, the less likely it is that it is all "consistent" (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029487). So a better approach is to invest the resources into well powered single study papers. In requesting multi-study papers one essentially creates a file drawer (only the ones with multiple studies showing an effect get "through"/are published).
@lakens Hmmm... the notion that a series of studies is needed to publish is one part of the thinking that brought some areas of psychology into trouble in the first place. Reviewers are not good in taking sampling error into account and perfectly consistent results are quite unlikely even when the effect is there. I think it is better to put (single) studies out, avoid a file drawer problem, and then leave replication and ultimately meta-analysis to others/the field as a whole...
@lrhodes The key problem is that this function allows people to comment on other people without those people having the possibility to reply to the same audience (the follower of the person quoting) so they are cut out of the conversation... A better thing would maybe be a possibility to reply and then boost the entire conversation (e.g., some mark that the person boosting replied or a summary).
@taylorlorenz when you want to meaningfully contribute to the conversation, it is better to reply... 🤷🏻 the idea is a conversation.
@arcaldwell49 The APA manual 7 has a large section discussing fragmental and piecemeal publication and there is also an open letter by APA to authors... https://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/openletter.pdf
The average social science journal article now cites 5 times as many references as such an article did back in 1960
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08404-0
@annescheel Chalmers "What Is This Thing Called Science?" is a great book.
@wviechtb @nino ...geocities... iconic internet culture...🤗

First time sharing a new publication here 🥳

Sharing the Recipe: #Reproducibility and #Replicability in Research Across Disciplines

https://riojournal.com/article/89980/

This is work with @h2 and @HilmiBro87 + Florian Pethig (who has yet to migrate over to the fediverse). #openscience

Sharing the Recipe: Reproducibility and Replicability in Research Across Disciplines

The open and transparent documentation of scientific processes has been established as a core antecedent of free knowledge. This also holds for generating robust insights in the scope of research projects. To convince academic peers and the public, the research process must be understandable and retraceable (reproducible), and repeatable (replicable) by others, precluding the inclusion of fluke findings into the canon of insights. In this contribution, we outline what reproducibility and replicability (R&R) could mean in the scope of different disciplines and traditions of research and which significance R&R has for generating insights in these fields. We draw on projects conducted in the scope of the Wikimedia "Open Science Fellows Program" (Fellowship Freies Wissen), an interdisciplinary, long-running funding scheme for projects contributing to open research practices. We identify twelve implemented projects from different disciplines which primarily focused on R&R, and multiple additional projects also touching on R&R. From these projects, we identify patterns and synthesize them into a roadmap of how research projects can achieve R&R across different disciplines. We further outline the ground covered by these projects and propose ways forward.

Research Ideas and Outcomes