Read on Twitter
I think @The_JOP's new policy on pre-registrations is a step in the right direction, although inevitably imperfect.
Here are 4 suggestions to make the policy more effective. https://twitter.com/The_JOP/status/1350385896315617280
Here are 4 suggestions to make the policy more effective. https://twitter.com/The_JOP/status/1350385896315617280
1. Require anonymized PAPs as part of the review process., and provide guidelines for reviewers on how to assess these PAPs.
It is just too easy to mischaracterize PAPs, as Ofosu and Posner show: https://www.georgeofosu.com/files/Ofosu-Posner-191212.pdf
It is just too easy to mischaracterize PAPs, as Ofosu and Posner show: https://www.georgeofosu.com/files/Ofosu-Posner-191212.pdf
2. Provide clear guidelines for authors on how to write a PAP, including how to register exploratory analyses, how to deal with PAPs that will be used for multiple papers, etc.
@dbroockman provides a fantastic starting point: https://twitter.com/dbroockman/status/1350897805603205123
@dbroockman provides a fantastic starting point: https://twitter.com/dbroockman/status/1350897805603205123
3. Introduce a results-blind review track (for instance, just for letters). Besides being a more robust form of promoting transparency and credibility, it may compensate for the concerns that the policy may increase inequalities.
4. Finally, give a stronger signal of the value of pre-registration in observational data. For instance, when original data is compiled for an obs study, Rs can pre-register Hs as credibly as in any original experiment.
Just to clarify: these are just a few thoughts, some of them probably wrong. I don't expect an overworked editorial team to ever address all these issues. But it was a bold step and I appreciate it, even with all the limitations of PAPs.
