syeducation.bsky.social
Professor of Psychology, University of Minnesota. Sporadically writing stuff at http://getsyeducated.substack.com
540 posts
3,515 followers
542 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Yes, that is exactly what I do...
comment in response to
post
I do not, perhaps one day!
comment in response to
post
Yeah, same, just vibes.
comment in response to
post
Looks like I commented right as you did, six indeed is the magic (made up) number bsky.app/profile/syed...
comment in response to
post
I do a hard cap at six per year, and explain this to any others who request once I have hit it. There have to be limits!
comment in response to
post
I do exactly that, but first I introduce them to traditional system, which unfortunately still dominates scholarly publication.
comment in response to
post
And this post by @eikofried.bsky.social is a solid accessible reading about the problems of our publishing process: eiko-fried.com/academia-in-...
comment in response to
post
Slide is available for use and modification here: docs.google.com/presentation...
comment in response to
post
further context: bsky.app/profile/ent3...
comment in response to
post
It's bonkers that in academic science we spend hours obsessing over the wording of a paper, but often only one person has seen the code that produced the results! 2/N
comment in response to
post
It was pretty innocuous, reviewer and ed thought that the opening was "too defensive" so I sacrificed this paragraph in lieu of other parts I wanted in there more. No big deal (but it is funny that that is the first question you asked!).
comment in response to
post
Thanks! I stay away from comparative claims; this paragraph was in the original version but cut during the review process.
comment in response to
post
open access version here: osf.io/preprints/ps...
comment in response to
post
Big congrats, Andrea, woooooo!!!!
comment in response to
post
Yes, very different. Deviations in RRs are much more transparently reported, in part because they are more clearly evident given the locked nature of the Stage 1. Undisclosed deviations, including major ones, are the norm in regular preregistration, unfortunately. Very rare to see in an RR.
comment in response to
post
I have edited many registered reports and the key is to be in communication with the editor about any potential deviations in advance of taking action. Most of the time the changes are fine, but they could potentially trigger re-review or rejection.
comment in response to
post
Kappa is somewhat counterintuitive at first glance. Having a lot of easy to code content can drive the Kappa down because the marginal distribution becomes imbalanced, and every disagreement hurts more that it would for a more balanced category.
comment in response to
post
Sorry, I don' quite understand what you are asking. Usually your coding system would only apply to the responses, you would not have any codes to apply to the questions (unless that was specifically of interest). Maybe I am misunderstanding.
comment in response to
post
Only the Journal of Controversial Ideas dares to publish our brave insights.
comment in response to
post
The Time for Criticism is Now — by @syeducation.bsky.social
This is about being critical about poor research, but I take the message more broadly as well that sometimes you've got to be very direct about what you believe.
comment in response to
post
Closest I know of: This special issues consists of five sets of researchers who independently analyzed the same set of four extended case studies of narrative identity psycnet.apa.org/PsycARTICLES...
comment in response to
post
Coincidentally, I smoked my last one 22 years ago today. Congrats.
comment in response to
post
Abstracts are hard! Editing Registered Reports have definitely led me to look at them much more closely.
comment in response to
post
Agreed, it's not great!
comment in response to
post
posted at the same time, ICYMI: bsky.app/profile/syed...
comment in response to
post
I think the issue is that the presentation in the abstract gives the impression that the rs and ds are representing the same effects, just expressed in the two metrics. Reading the paper, it is clear that they are summary effect sizes for different types of studies.
comment in response to
post
You might find some goodies in my grad seminar syllabus, especially the non-required required background reading list at the end. docs.google.com/document/d/1...
comment in response to
post
Yes I hear this all the time, in fact in a meeting just last week, and the idea that you should not include demographics first almost certainly originates from Steele & Aronson's (1995) article on stereotype threat.
comment in response to
post
If you were more addicted to ChatGPT you could have used that to make the table.
comment in response to
post
100% thought you made that up. I should have known better.