Post #1604873

@ingorohlfing I see three situations here: (a) Researchers who are transparent and preregister get a more critical review (because deviations are found etc.) (b) Prereg / non-prereg get the same level of criticism (c) Non-prereg gets a more critical review, because of undisclosed flexibility and higher risk of bias. I read the current review guidelines primarily as „we want to avoid (a)“, and I fully agree to that. Beyond, I lean towards (c) *if* a preregistration would have been feasible. A prereg mitigates risk of bias; if that tool of mitigation is not present/not possible, I expect other measures of ensuring trust.