This is such an important discussion to have openly. Not having clear standards for publishability in any field has created myriad problems, from contributing to a knowledge base of grossly inconsistent quality to researcher anxiety resulting from uncertainty.
Wrt to
@b_penders you propose that norms are expanding. Actually, I believe they're contracting. We've had very loose standards for what should contribute to the knowledge base, and that's cost us in resources, reliability and credibility.
@b_penders you propose that norms are expanding. Actually, I believe they're contracting. We've had very loose standards for what should contribute to the knowledge base, and that's cost us in resources, reliability and credibility.
It's true the variety of outlets for research has increased, not to mention the massive increase in quantity of verifiable evidence that is now publicly available. But this should be distinguished from the norms themselves, which have become more stringent for reliable science.
Our project Reviewer Guidelines for QRPs is precisely about creating a viable form of standardisation for how a given set of research flaws should be addressed.
docs.google.com/document/d/1rR…
docs.google.com/document/d/1rR…
Viability here refers to creating a resource that researchers will use and respect.
Given the plurality of voices in science, and the move away from the top-down imposition of norms based on prestige, funding, sex, gender, race, geography, etc., >
Given the plurality of voices in science, and the move away from the top-down imposition of norms based on prestige, funding, sex, gender, race, geography, etc., >
achieving such a resource will necessarily involve a format that not only allows, but depends on a massive, hierarchy-free information organising structure that is easy for most people to participate in.
This is why our solution is to crowd-source the QRP Reviewer Guidelines.
What @RemiGau and I have been doing is to gather research to allow us to create the initial list of QRPs. We also have also suggested categories of information that should be included with each QRP, i.e. >
What @RemiGau and I have been doing is to gather research to allow us to create the initial list of QRPs. We also have also suggested categories of information that should be included with each QRP, i.e. >
These include:
1. Formal Definition:
2. Refs:
3. Example:
4. Tells:
5. Tools that may produce tells:
6. What to say to author:
7. Recalcitrant Editor Response (RER) to help convince editors to go with good science practice instead of what’s customary.
1. Formal Definition:
2. Refs:
3. Example:
4. Tells:
5. Tools that may produce tells:
6. What to say to author:
7. Recalcitrant Editor Response (RER) to help convince editors to go with good science practice instead of what’s customary.
Our goals are lofty, but they are achievable in a massively collaborative setting. If you would like to help us build the infrastructure, and/or participate in filling in the blanks, please send a tweet or a DM to @QRP_Rev_Guide.
