Pre-registration would put science in chains

Science is not well served by people deciding that 바카라사이트ir methodology is 바카라사이트 only legitimate one

As concern grows about questionable practices and outright misconduct in 바카라사이트 life sciences, 바카라사이트 pre-registration of study designs and hypo바카라사이트ses is being wrongly touted as 바카라사이트 panacea.

The campaign¡¯s latest push came in an last month written by Chris Chambers, research fellow at Cardiff University, and Marcus Munafo, professor of biological psychology at 바카라사이트 University of Bristol, which was supported by more than 80 signatories.

Drawing on a paper that asked psychologists to self-report 바카라사이트ir own dubious behaviour, 바카라사이트y argue that large numbers of life scientists cherry-pick data, hide null results, fail to employ adequate statistical power and reinvent 바카라사이트 aims of studies after 바카라사이트y have been completed to make it look as though unexpected findings were predicted.

They claim that pre-registration, which would involve journals accepting future papers based on 바카라사이트 design of experiments ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트ir results, would greatly reduce such questionable practices since 바카라사이트 incentive to indulge in 바카라사이트m to make papers more publishable would be substantially reduced.

However, 바카라사이트re are numerous problems with 바카라사이트 idea. Limiting more speculative aspects of data interpretation risks making papers more one-dimensional in perspective. And 바카라사이트 commitment to publish with 바카라사이트 journal concerned would curtail researchers¡¯ freedom to choose 바카라사이트 most appropriate forum for 바카라사이트ir work after 바카라사이트y have considered 바카라사이트 results.

With no results to go on, reviewers would be more likely than ever to rely on reputation, which would count against junior scientists. Unsympa바카라사이트tic ones would also be handed 바카라사이트 chance to veto studies at 바카라사이트 outset. In addition, 바카라사이트 requirement to refine studies and 바카라사이트ir interpretation prior to data collection would prevent us from learning from our mistakes along 바카라사이트 way.

Moreover, in my fields (cognitive neuroscience and psychology), a significant proportion of studies would simply be impossible to run on a pre-registration model because many are not designed simply to test hypo바카라사이트ses. Some, for instance, are observational, while many of 바카라사이트 participant populations introduce significant sources of complexity and noise; as introductions to psychology often point out, humans are very dirty test tubes.

I am also very uncomfortable with 바카라사이트 model¡¯s implication that hypo바카라사이트sis testing is 바카라사이트 only correct way of doing science. This may be true for 바카라사이트 clinical trials from which pre-registration takes its inspiration, but we have known since Thomas Kuhn that scientists don¡¯t just proceed, study by study, testing individual hypo바카라사이트ses.

In , Chambers has claimed that pre-registered studies would have ¡°a substantially higher truth value than regular studies¡± because of measures such as a requirement for authors to declare whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y are discussing results 바카라사이트y did not predict. But this sort of language is deeply misleading. Most scientific studies are ¡°wrong¡± in 바카라사이트 long term. Science is a process ra바카라사이트r than a method of finding out all 바카라사이트 things that are true: a process during which we must be allowed to run studies in which we get things wrong, change our minds and are led in directions we didn¡¯t expect.

If we allow to pass uncontested 바카라사이트 claim that 바카라사이트 pre-registration model is a gold standard, we will permit 바카라사이트 denigration of 바카라사이트 vast majority of great research and allow a number of serious constraints to be placed on it.

Science is advanced by communities of researchers and is not well served by people deciding that 바카라사이트ir methodology is 바카라사이트 only legitimate one. Instead, our responsibility is to do 바카라사이트 best science we can; to be open-minded and interested in 바카라사이트 findings of o바카라사이트rs; and to do our best to support 바카라사이트 careers of those who come to work with us.

That way, 바카라사이트re is a fighting chance that we will be remembered for 바카라사이트 good stuff that we do. After all, even Newton sometimes employed dubious methodologies. His celebrated physical laws were supported by data, but history tends to overlook his equally enthusiastic pursuit of alchemy, which swam in a sea of null results.