Re: [AUDITORY] Registered reports

[Les Bernstein <lbernstein@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear List,

For this topic, I'll violate my rule of not posting replies here.  I agree with Ms. Rankovic.  I sure did not miss the substance and detail of Mr. Schoof's email.  I also read over the information in the links.  Indeed, the proposed plan provides for a second review.  It seems to me, however, that the provisional acceptance is a key aspect of the process.  If it were the case that manuscripts were rejected upon second review with substantial frequency, then the philosophy of the registered report would be violated and the system would collapse.  So, unless there are egregious errors or flaws in the full manuscript, it seems that it would be published.  Note that, in this linked reference, publication is assumed to be "guaranteed."

In my opinion, the criticism found within the FAQ here, that "The Registered Reports model is based on a naïve conceptualisation of the scientific method." is well-founded!  The reply offered to counter that criticism is quite weak and unconvincing.  I would replace "scientific method" in that criticism with "the way good science is done."

Question 17 in Chambers et al. (2014-- linked above) provides an apt example.  In the process of conducting complex experiments, it is very often the case that unexpected results lead to important follow-up or control experiments.  Chambers et al. handle this issue by proposing that in Stage 1 of a registered report, contingencies be stated such that "If A is observed, then we will..."  That, of course, assumes that one knows the decision tree in advance!  In my experience, science simply does not work that way.

While I find the intent of registered reports to be laudable, in my opinion, it substitutes one potential set of problems with another based on a narrow view of how science proceeds.  Indeed, one may have a hypothesis to be tested and gather a set of data to address it only to find that the results support a substantially altered view.  Is that, NECESSARILY, the dreaded "HARKing?"  I think not.  Scientific thought and inquiry do not always proceed in a linear fashion.  One cannot and should not always know the precise questions or list of contingencies a priori and be restricted to answering only those.  Then there are experiments in which there are no specific hypotheses.  They may be of the form, "What is the effect of variable A on measurements of X?"  Assuming the question is non-trivial, those are often the most revealing experiments because any outcome is of interest.  There is no "positive" or "negative."  Sure, one can cast such experiments in terms of hypotheses but doing so often involves a contrivance.

Then there is the matter of "p-hacking" and what I would call "statistics shopping."  Indeed, it is a problem.  Unexpected outcomes and patterns of data in a complex experiment often require one to choose the appropriate statistic after the fact.  It is sometimes the correct thing to do!  Whether it is proper can and should be judged by reviewers with the requisite expertise.  Good peer-review should distinguish between p-hacking and a rational choice that conveys information and "truth."  The notion that one can and should use only the statistic decided upon in advance is unnecessary restrictive.

Finally, there is the matter of archival value.  According to Chambers et al., "...if the rationale and methods are sound then the journal should agree to publish the final paper regardless of the specific outcome."  It is often the case that rationale and methods are sound but the data provide no substantial advance or archival value.  I'm not sure that "approving" a method and rationale and virtually guaranteeing publication will afford the same level of judgment in terms of archival value that is afforded by the current system.

Les Bernstein

--
Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. | Professor
Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology)| UConn School of Medicine
263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401
Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495

On 6/4/2018 7:51 AM, Christine Rankovic wrote:

Mr. Schoof:

 

It is beyond ridiculous to accept partial manuscripts for publication.

Christine Rankovic, PhD

Scientist, Speech and Hearing

Newton, MA  USA

rankovic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Schoof, Tim
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 4:06 AM
To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Registered reports

 

Dear list,

 

I'm going to try and get hearing science journals to start offering registered reports. These reports are basically peer-reviewed pre-registration documents where you outline your methods and proposed analyses. If this document makes it through peer-review, the manuscript is provisionally accepted for publication. This process should reduce certain questionable research practices, such as selective reporting of results and publication bias. If you're sceptical about registered reports, the Center for Open Science has compiled a nice FAQ list that might address some of your concerns: https://cos.io/rr/

 

I think this is the direction science is going in now and it would be great if hearing science joined in. I plan to contact as many hearing science journals as possible. I'm compiling a list of journals to contact. Please add to this list if I'm missing anything: https://tinyurl.com/yaf9r7bk. I don't think any of these journals offer (or are in the process of offering) registered reports yet, but correct me if I'm wrong.

 

If you agree that registered reports are a good idea and want to sign the letter I intend to send (see here for a template: https://osf.io/3wct2/wiki/Journal%20Requests/), let me know and I'll add you to the list. And please spread the word of course. The more people agree, the more likely it is we can get some of these journals on board!

 

Best,

Tim Schoof

 

--

Research Associate

UCL Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences

 

Chandler House

2 Wakefield Street

London WC1N 1PF

United Kingdom