Post #1604860

2025-10-14 05:57 UTC

@nicebread even though it seems good sense, I still have difficulties with this pre-registering experimental plans : at least in plant science, you are up to so many surprises, that you might have planned doing it one way, and ending up a different one. #academicchatter

Replies (2)

@odr_k4tana@infosec.exchange 2025-10-14 06:07

@olibrendel @nicebread yeah, it's hard for some fields to do that. Psychologists (at least the ones I've talked to) have a hard time imagining how much "fucking around/finding out" there can be in natural sciences. But it's also different: psychologists deal with abstract constructs that have miniscule effect sizes, instruments with horrible measurement error etc. In natural sciences, measurements are better, effect sizes are often large, etc... Different ball game.

Open ##1604861
@nicebread@scicomm.xyz 2025-10-14 06:08

@olibrendel The feasibility of preregistration differs by field and topic, for sure. At least in psychology, there is a broad consensus that deviations from preregistration are not necessarily a down-side of a paper. They are actually quite common and there often are good reasons to deviate. But the deviations need to be transparently reported. Readers then can make a judgment and evaluate the strength of evidence / risk of bias. (in contrast to non-prereg without disclosure of deviations, where everything looks „perfect“).

Open ##1604862