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
<https://orca.cf.ac.uk/59475/1/AN2.pdf>, publication is assumed to be
"guaranteed."
In my opinion, the criticism found within the FAQ here
<https://cos.io/rr/>, 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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cos.io_rr_&d=DwMFAg&c=EZxp_D7cDnouwj5YEFHgXuSKoUq2zVQZ_7Fw9yfotck&r=2Pw2GwelGcMR4953G-STHGpPJm2-pYYYSPmTwJk3sWM&m=Sr0Ep-Gx1c9KJlrgGBL4rmcUvd9qeDUDnFKUymDoKpI&s=vXqZBKaP1dUovPzwBwC5DalLCB6UxwKuM9x_SQCbw5I&e=>
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/
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cos.io_rr_&d=DwMFAg&c=EZxp_D7cDnouwj5YEFHgXuSKoUq2zVQZ_7Fw9yfotck&r=2Pw2GwelGcMR4953G-STHGpPJm2-pYYYSPmTwJk3sWM&m=Sr0Ep-Gx1c9KJlrgGBL4rmcUvd9qeDUDnFKUymDoKpI&s=vXqZBKaP1dUovPzwBwC5DalLCB6UxwKuM9x_SQCbw5I&e=>
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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_yaf9r7bk&d=DwMFAg&c=EZxp_D7cDnouwj5YEFHgXuSKoUq2zVQZ_7Fw9yfotck&r=2Pw2GwelGcMR4953G-STHGpPJm2-pYYYSPmTwJk3sWM&m=Sr0Ep-Gx1c9KJlrgGBL4rmcUvd9qeDUDnFKUymDoKpI&s=sk2rFf3fImx-wI9S05uLc7WYgADb5BupEMAQvL3hz-0&e=>.
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/
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__osf.io_3wct2_wiki_Journal-2520Requests_&d=DwMFAg&c=EZxp_D7cDnouwj5YEFHgXuSKoUq2zVQZ_7Fw9yfotck&r=2Pw2GwelGcMR4953G-STHGpPJm2-pYYYSPmTwJk3sWM&m=Sr0Ep-Gx1c9KJlrgGBL4rmcUvd9qeDUDnFKUymDoKpI&s=G-jhAt3_0f5cPPX7aRpPgVfihZYm_ZTuPohnhVfxWFw&e=>),
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