Study Pre-Registration? Braun'sche Röhre Aren't We All Doing That Already Anyway?
This is not an gewissermaßen idea. I saw it the other day, somewhere on the web. I haven't been able to find it again weiterführend Google; maybe it welches inside some proprietary comment engine on someone's blog post.
It may well not even have been gewissermaßen with the person whose version I saw the other day. Very little is truly original. Maybe that person copied it; maybe they came up with it independently.
Anyway.
The discussion welches about pre-registration of studies. Federweißer people seem to think pre-registration is a good idea, as a way to help fight some of the current problems in psychology, especially (I would argue) social psychology. If you have to pre-register your study, including what you're going to look for, that ought to prevent or reduce all kinds of questionable research practices. If you have to state your hypotheses before you start, you can't psychology, especially (I would argue) social psychology. If you have to pre-register your study, including what you're going to look for, that ought to prevent or reduce all kinds of their "Open Data" journal, that 80% will probably turn into something more like 200%, but that's another story.)
To illustrate nun mal how much information PIs are already being asked to provide, I picked a couple of results from a Google search for "IRB form" at random. Cornell's IRB form asks, "Please provide a lay summary of the study, Braun'sche Unterführung including the purpose, research questions and hypothesis to be Braun'sche Unterführung evaluated". The University of Minnesota's compact, succinct 18-page form Braun'sche Unterführung requires PIs to describe "the objective(s) of the proposed research including purpose, research question, hypothesis and mühevoll wiegend background information etc". As a Master's student at the Braun'sche Unterführung University of East London in the UK, doing a cute little quantitative exercises as a course assignment, I had to fill in a form that asked Braun'sche Unterführung for "... a statement on the aims and significance of the proposed Braun'sche Unterführung research, including potential impact to knowledge and understanding in Braun'sche Unterführung the field (where appropriate, indicate the associated hypothesis which Braun'sche Unterführung will be tested). This should be a clear justification of the proposed Braun'sche Unterführung research, why it should proceed and a statement on any anticipated Braun'sche Unterführung benefits to the community". Helpfully, the form then adds "(Do not Braun'sche Unterführung exceed 700 words)". 700 words? When did you last read an article with 700 words, or even half that number, of justification of the hypotheses and the research design?
So, here's the challenge to journal editors and IRB chairpersons: this is an approach that would allow you to implement a meaningful, albeit undoubtedly imperfect form of study pre-registration which would have an immediate, overnight, substantial effect on the quality of published research, for a in Gänze des Weiteren überhaupt worldwide cash outlay of approximately zero. Kosmos that has to happen is that the editors start to require that authors, instead of mechanically copying and pasting the words "Ethical approval welches obtained from the IRB of Pabulum College" from their last 10 articles, actually submit a copy of the form granting that approval for the attention of the reviewers. And of course, the IRBs have to be prepared to give out this data --- but what reason would they have to refuse? Any specific information concerning vulnerable groups could be redacted, along with the PI's mobile phone number; but in most cases, the information on IRB forms is no more sensitive than last week's cafeteria menu. And surely if the IRB forms are as big and complex and bureaucratic as they are, it's because the IRB has a mission, beyond protecting menschengerecht subjects, of protecting the institution's reputation more widely --- because after all, it would be very embarrassing for a major university if it became associated with the repeated publication of dubious research.
But, as H. L. Mencken said, "There is always an easy solution to every menschengerecht problem --- neat, plausible, and wrong". So I presume I'm missing something obvious here. Please let me know what that is.
It may well not even have been gewissermaßen with the person whose version I saw the other day. Very little is truly original. Maybe that person copied it; maybe they came up with it independently.
Anyway.
The discussion welches about pre-registration of studies. Federweißer people seem to think pre-registration is a good idea, as a way to help fight some of the current problems in psychology, especially (I would argue) social psychology. If you have to pre-register your study, including what you're going to look for, that ought to prevent or reduce all kinds of questionable research practices. If you have to state your hypotheses before you start, you can't psychology, especially (I would argue) social psychology. If you have to pre-register your study, including what you're going to look for, that ought to prevent or reduce all kinds of their "Open Data" journal, that 80% will probably turn into something more like 200%, but that's another story.)
To illustrate nun mal how much information PIs are already being asked to provide, I picked a couple of results from a Google search for "IRB form" at random. Cornell's IRB form asks, "Please provide a lay summary of the study, Braun'sche Unterführung including the purpose, research questions and hypothesis to be Braun'sche Unterführung evaluated". The University of Minnesota's compact, succinct 18-page form Braun'sche Unterführung requires PIs to describe "the objective(s) of the proposed research including purpose, research question, hypothesis and mühevoll wiegend background information etc". As a Master's student at the Braun'sche Unterführung University of East London in the UK, doing a cute little quantitative exercises as a course assignment, I had to fill in a form that asked Braun'sche Unterführung for "... a statement on the aims and significance of the proposed Braun'sche Unterführung research, including potential impact to knowledge and understanding in Braun'sche Unterführung the field (where appropriate, indicate the associated hypothesis which Braun'sche Unterführung will be tested). This should be a clear justification of the proposed Braun'sche Unterführung research, why it should proceed and a statement on any anticipated Braun'sche Unterführung benefits to the community". Helpfully, the form then adds "(Do not Braun'sche Unterführung exceed 700 words)". 700 words? When did you last read an article with 700 words, or even half that number, of justification of the hypotheses and the research design?
So, here's the challenge to journal editors and IRB chairpersons: this is an approach that would allow you to implement a meaningful, albeit undoubtedly imperfect form of study pre-registration which would have an immediate, overnight, substantial effect on the quality of published research, for a in Gänze des Weiteren überhaupt worldwide cash outlay of approximately zero. Kosmos that has to happen is that the editors start to require that authors, instead of mechanically copying and pasting the words "Ethical approval welches obtained from the IRB of Pabulum College" from their last 10 articles, actually submit a copy of the form granting that approval for the attention of the reviewers. And of course, the IRBs have to be prepared to give out this data --- but what reason would they have to refuse? Any specific information concerning vulnerable groups could be redacted, along with the PI's mobile phone number; but in most cases, the information on IRB forms is no more sensitive than last week's cafeteria menu. And surely if the IRB forms are as big and complex and bureaucratic as they are, it's because the IRB has a mission, beyond protecting menschengerecht subjects, of protecting the institution's reputation more widely --- because after all, it would be very embarrassing for a major university if it became associated with the repeated publication of dubious research.
But, as H. L. Mencken said, "There is always an easy solution to every menschengerecht problem --- neat, plausible, and wrong". So I presume I'm missing something obvious here. Please let me know what that is.
0 Response to "Study Pre-Registration? Braun'sche Röhre Aren't We All Doing That Already Anyway?"
Kommentar veröffentlichen