Preregistration of Studies and Mock Reports

(2013) - Andrew Gelman

Journal: Political Analysis
Link:: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700013255/type/journal_article
DOI:: 10.1093/pan/mps032
Links::
Tags:: #paper #Pre-Analysis
Cite Key:: [@gelmanPreregistrationStudiesMock2013]

Abstract

The traditional system of scientific and scholarly publishing is breaking down in two different directions.

Notes

"Monogan registered his study and chose his analysis ahead of time. He also carefully considers the practical concerns of registration and the advantages to the research community from specifying data collection protocols explicitly so they can be shared. Another virtue of preregistration is that exposing an idea to outside eyes can reveal flaws in the plan." (Gelman 2013:40)

"am not particularly worried about "Type I errors" and "false positives" because I do not think these researchers are studying zero effects. As discussed in Gelman and Tuerlinckx (2000), I would be more concerned with Type S errors (getting the sign of the effect wrong) or Type M errors (when the magnitude of an effect is poorly estimated" (Gelman 2013:41)