Proponents of preregistration argue that, among other benefits, it improves the diagnosticity of statistical tests. In the strong version of this argument, preregistration does this by solving statistical problems, such as family-wise error rates. In …
The social sciences—including economics—have long called for transparency in research to counter threats to producing robust and replicable results. In this paper, we discuss the pros and cons of three of the more prominent proposed approaches: …
The idea for the registration of observational epidemiologic studies (with their protocols, hypotheses, and analysis plans) is modeled on the registration of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The movement that led to the registration of RCTs was fed …
This is a commentary on Lee et al.’s (2019) article encouraging preregistration of model development, fitting, and evaluation. While we are in general agreement with Lee et al.’s characterization of the modeling process, we disagree on whether …
A recent workshop focused on the idea that protocols for nonrandomized studies should be registered in advance of their conduct. In reviewing the workshop report and publications citing it, I note a number of unfounded assumptions and little …
There is an ongoing debate regarding preregistration of epidemiologic study protocols. We examine the basic idea that preregistration of study protocols and their associated hypotheses would enhance the reliability of observational research. We …
Current attempts at methodological reform in sciences come in response to an overall lack of rigor in methodological and scientific practices in experimental sciences. However, most methodological reform attempts suffer from similar mistakes and …
Kerr ([1998]) coined the term ‘HARKing’ to refer to the practice of ‘hypothesizing after the results are known’. This questionable research practice has received increased attention in recent years because it is thought to have contributed to low …
I discuss Van Drimmelen’s (2023) Metascience2023 presentation on researchers’ decision making during the research process. In particular, I consider his evidence that researchers’ discretion over research decisions is unavoidable when they follow …
Hypothesizing after the results are known, or HARKing, occurs when researchers check their research results and then add or remove hypotheses on the basis of those results without acknowledging this process in their research report (Kerr, 1998). In …