,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Been thinking about the connection between the publication/peer review process and the (toxic?) culture of defensiveness/combativeness in academia.
We’ve set up a system where scholars invests a lot in their ideas (e.g., run studies, write manuscripts)...
1/6
We’ve set up a system where scholars invests a lot in their ideas (e.g., run studies, write manuscripts)...
1/6
... and then are put in a position to defend those ideas from reviewers' critiques when the work is done.
Essentially, we incentivize them to be combatants and staunch defenders of their ideas, rewarding them for digging their heals in when faced with criticism or new ideas.
2/6
Essentially, we incentivize them to be combatants and staunch defenders of their ideas, rewarding them for digging their heals in when faced with criticism or new ideas.
2/6
But #RegisteredReports are a game changer in the culture of scientific knowledge production. Since in this model researchers and reviewers work together prior to data collection, it incentivizes openness and collaboration to improve the work beforehand...
3/6
3/6
...rather than putting researchers in a position where they have to defend what has already been done. The peer review process is front-loaded to make the research better beforehand rather than serving as a battleground over completed work...
4/6
4/6
...when it's too late in the process to substantially improve that work.
Rather than promoting a culture of defensiveness and combativeness in academia, registered reports encourage cooperation and reward scholars who are open-minded and work towards collective goals.
5/6
Rather than promoting a culture of defensiveness and combativeness in academia, registered reports encourage cooperation and reward scholars who are open-minded and work towards collective goals.
5/6
TLDR: #OpenScience --> Better scholarly communities
6/6
6/6
