Re: [AUDITORY] Registered reports (Les Bernstein )

Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] Registered reports From: Les Bernstein <lbernstein@xxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:50:51 -0400 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY> --------------10D6D0F0540C0A1B3DBB0BD8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by edgeum1.it.mcgill.ca id w55EqIsY011132 <html> <head> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252"> </head> <body text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"> Dear List, For this topic, I'll violate my rule of not posting replies here.=A0 I agree with Ms. Rankovic.=A0 I sure did not miss the substance and detail of Mr. Schoof's email.=A0 I also read over the information in the links.=A0 Indeed, the proposed plan provides for a second review.=A0 It seems to me, however, that th= e provisional acceptance is a key aspect of the process.=A0 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.=A0 So, unless there are egregious errors or flaws in th= e full manuscript, it seems that it would be published.=A0 Note that, in <a moz-do-not-send=3D"true" href=3D"https://orca.cf.ac.uk/59475/1/AN2.pdf">this linked reference</a>, publication is assumed to be "guaranteed." In my opinion, the criticism found within the FAQ <a moz-do-not-send=3D"true" href=3D"https://cos.io/rr/">here</a>, that "The Registered Reports model is based on a na=EFve conceptualisation of the scientific method." is well-founded!=A0 The reply offered to counter that criticism is quite weak and unconvincing.=A0 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.=A0 In the process of conducting complex experiments, it is very often the case that unexpected results lead to important follow-up or control experiments.=A0 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..."=A0 That, of course, assumes that one knows the decision tree in advance!=A0 In my experience, science simply doe= s 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.=A0 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.=A0 Is that, NECESSARILY, the dreaded "HARKing?"=A0 I think not.=A0 Scientific thought and inquiry do n= ot always proceed in a linear fashion.=A0 One cannot and should not always know the precise questions or list of contingencies a priori and be restricted to answering only those.=A0 Then there are experiments in which there are no specific hypotheses.=A0 The= y may be of the form, "What is the effect of variable A on measurements of X?"=A0 Assuming the question is non-trivial, thos= e are often the most revealing experiments because any outcome is of interest.=A0 There is no "positive" or "negative."=A0 Sure, on= e 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."=A0 Indeed, it is a problem.=A0 Unexpected outcomes and patterns of data in a complex experiment often require one to choose the appropriate statistic after the fact.=A0 It is sometimes the correct thing to do!=A0 Whether it is proper can and should be judged by reviewers with the requisite expertise.=A0 Good peer-review should distinguish between p-hacking and a rational choice that conveys information and "truth."=A0 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.=A0 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."=A0 It is often the case that rationale and methods are sound but the data provide no substantial advance or archival value.=A0 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. </= b>| 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 <img alt=3D"" src=3D"cid:part3.45516EE9.9AF5E615@xxxxxxxx" height=3D"48" width=3D"125"> <a href=3D"https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps-3A__cos.io_rr_= &d=3DDwMFAg&c=3DEZxp_D7cDnouwj5YEFHgXuSKoUq2zVQZ_7Fw9yfotck&r= =3D2Pw2GwelGcMR4953G-STHGpPJm2-pYYYSPmTwJk3sWM&m=3DSr0Ep-Gx1c9KJlrgGB= L4rmcUvd9qeDUDnFKUymDoKpI&s=3DvXqZBKaP1dUovPzwBwC5DalLCB6UxwKuM9x_SQC= bw5I&e=3D" id=3D"LPlnk151566"></a> <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 6/4/2018 7:51 AM, Christine Rankovi= c wrote: </div> <blockquote type=3D"cite" cite=3D"mid:14429_1528171578_5B160C3A_14429_74_1_000001d3fbfa$5545a620$ff= d0f260$@xxxxxxxx"> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252"> <meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> <div class=3D"WordSection1"> <div> <div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> Mr. Schoof:<o:p></o:p> <o:p>=A0</o:p> </div> </div> It is beyond ridiculous to accept partial manuscripts for publication.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Christine Rankovic, PhD<o:p></o:p> Scientist, Speech and Hearing<o:p></o:p> Newton, MA=A0 USA<o:p></o:p> <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href=3D"mail= to:rankovic@xxxxxxxx">rankovic@xxxxxxxx</a><o:p></o:p></s= pan> <o:p>=A0</o:p> <o:p>=A0</o:p> From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception [<a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx= ISTS.MCGILL.CA">mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a>] On Behalf Of = Schoof, Tim Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 4:06 AM To: <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href=3D"mail= to:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a> Subject: Registered reports<o:p></o:p> <o:p>=A0</o:p> <div id=3D"divtagdefaultwrapper"> <div> Dear list,<o:p></o:p> <o:p>=A0</o:p> 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=A0selective reporting of results and publication bias. If you're sceptical about registered reports,=A0the Center for Open Science has compiled a nice FAQ list that might address some of your concerns: <a href=3D"https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps-3A__cos.io_rr_= &d=3DDwMFAg&c=3DEZxp_D7cDnouwj5YEFHgXuSKoUq2zVQZ_7Fw9yfotck&r= =3D2Pw2GwelGcMR4953G-STHGpPJm2-pYYYSPmTwJk3sWM&m=3DSr0Ep-Gx1c9KJlrgGB= L4rmcUvd9qeDUDnFKUymDoKpI&s=3DvXqZBKaP1dUovPzwBwC5DalLCB6UxwKuM9x_SQC= bw5I&e=3D" id=3D"LPlnk151566" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">https://cos= .io/rr/</a><o:p></o:p> <o:p>=A0</o:p> 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: <a href=3D"https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps-3A__tinyurl.co= m_yaf9r7bk&d=3DDwMFAg&c=3DEZxp_D7cDnouwj5YEFHgXuSKoUq2zVQZ_7Fw9yf= otck&r=3D2Pw2GwelGcMR4953G-STHGpPJm2-pYYYSPmTwJk3sWM&m=3DSr0Ep-Gx= 1c9KJlrgGBL4rmcUvd9qeDUDnFKUymDoKpI&s=3Dsk2rFf3fImx-wI9S05uLc7WYgADb5= BupEMAQvL3hz-0&e=3D" id=3D"LPlnk940137" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">https://tin= yurl.com/yaf9r7bk</a>. 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.<o:p></o:p> <o:p>=A0</o:p> 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: <a href=3D"https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps-3A__osf.io_3wc= t2_wiki_Journal-2520Requests_&d=3DDwMFAg&c=3DEZxp_D7cDnouwj5YEFHg= XuSKoUq2zVQZ_7Fw9yfotck&r=3D2Pw2GwelGcMR4953G-STHGpPJm2-pYYYSPmTwJk3s= WM&m=3DSr0Ep-Gx1c9KJlrgGBL4rmcUvd9qeDUDnFKUymDoKpI&s=3DG-jhAt3_0f= 5cPPX7aRpPgVfihZYm_ZTuPohnhVfxWFw&e=3D" id=3D"LPlnk473363" moz-do-not-send=3D"true">https://osf= .io/3wct2/wiki/Journal%20Requests/</a>), 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! <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p>=A0</o:p> </div> <div> Best,<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Tim Schoof<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p>=A0</o:p> </div> <div> --<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Research Associate<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> UCL Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p>=A0</o:p> </div> <div> Chandler House<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> 2 Wakefield Street<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> London WC1N 1PF<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> United Kingdom<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p>=A0</o:p> </div> </div> </blockquote> <div class=3D"moz-signature"> </div> </body> </html> --------------10D6D0F0540C0A1B3DBB0BD8 Content-Type: image/png; name="uconnhealth_stacked_blue_email.png" Content-ID: <part3.45516EE9.9AF5E615@xxxxxxxx> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="uconnhealth_stacked_blue_email.png" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAH0AAAAwCAMAAAALmIWlAAAAGXRFWHRTb2Z0d2FyZQBBZG9i ZSBJbWFnZVJlYWR5ccllPAAAADNQTFRFKzVYHCZM4eLn8PHzpKi30dTbaG+IlZqrs7fDWWB8 O0Nkd32UwsXPSlJwhoufDRhA////A68jmAAAABF0Uk5T/////////////////////wAlrZli AAACYklEQVR42uzY22KDIAwAUC7e6gjw/187gUC4OetaupflaTXKWSuBKNMuJptC+QMCP20a uPHBQCubBWU46K24uB7NfZ58ZqaMP8D8AEBHtT/goXnB8WPwBf8r1WYUXWxUOZobHcJXIMcf ONclmE4s0lrRzYBIOjvTjX5WV6YbP2ZQJ6TWjfiAbuYzHW7p+xpuolQrP83sjQ5nupnu6Lqa J92MbnSznulcfkBHpNXNY6y+c0JKnWX1eFeflQt5qcNESKnrQMrf6LSAXeiWkEoXdOU4nZBK xzPnoTohtW5ZZyK8W09Io6tYjyP1iDS6XbAeh815S0irS6zHUfXuB0Ok1S3W41AdEWh1/Nb7 UD1bWytd0LY4ThdnerYbBJ1taT5XBmy4J8mNnWagp5fbba6HeiTdneK6vNgoFj0EhyO4eSZT 6AlpdNXoNzqYi94GbIU0eqhHp3d5drRf4heZUo9Iq8vYptup6VB37H6m/W6m0hFpdaxH3/yK 9cHpVq5Zy59n2GMV/QxPGdV9NElPE9njyOozsfWWKq6j7bLuw97KPBnM/mX86//6n+tH/yLK P7AUXcyd80Lx53WnspB47ty5qKND1gLockfIFzHR7srpQ7X0+6GgHPNFXedPyaN1CPFli71z +ZBeTxbcI2RXxwOQj/lW/Ui610Z6gA4a32WRrssXYbO76V/Zy6FLnZVj/qCnqGcdZE1DeFKc ntWrMV/RZXCh7B/fpF/+8tQQx6J74y9/Oeuyrm75+Jyf8oKWH9CL1SYNJtJ91HTOAD2fdjPN 9UcsumwmDNYXqvPtOLa9pH8LMACnoV0siZAyOAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== --------------10D6D0F0540C0A1B3DBB0BD8--

This message came from the mail archive
src/postings/2018/
maintained by:

DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University