Changing the reviewing to a more continuous one?
In the twitter discussion on changing psychology, someone linked in this Klaus Fiedler et al article (open access) from the special issue in perspectives of psychological sciences of last fall. Here he brings up that the tightening of controls for alpha errors may have consequences that are also undesirable for science – the beta errors. Rejecting hypotheses (because they could be a whole family) because you get no results.
This prompted me to go back to the videos of February’s symposium, to watch his talk again (scroll down a bit). It is worth a second look. He is, well, critical. I sat next to Daniel Lakens at the symposium, and he told me he is always critical. And, you can see Klaus F himself saying that he likes being against the main stream. It is quite enjoyable, because it gets to the part of science where you need to be clever, inventive, a bit almost romantic (he suggests falling in love with your theories), and not allow yourself to focus on the most obvious theory, because it could be too narrow.
Towards the end, in the question time, he says there is a need for debate. Scientific findings needs debate. It doesn’t happen in the journals. It happens in the blogosphere, on twitter, etc. He brought up the debate question again during the panel.
Which brings me to the other two blogs I want to bring in.
Rolf Zwaan continues to discuss pre-publication (and post-publication) discussions and review, as evidently he has been critiqued. Sebastian Mathot, commented and linked in his “the beauty of being wrong” post, which furthers these discussions.
And, when I read this, I was reminded of Klaus F’s request for debates. Continuous discussion of the research.