[R] OFF TOPIC: "Scientific rigor proponents retract paper on benefits of scientific rigor"

[Bert Gunter]

This is off topic and only tangentially related to statistics or R
(through "HARK"ing -- Hypothesizing After Results are Known). But
given the research interests of many on this list, I thought others
would enjoy it. My apologies if I have overstepped (please let me know
if so). Also, PLEASE DON'T RESPOND ON THIS LIST (privately is fine).
This is just FYI.

I don't know whether the (short) article is pay walled, but here's the
main message:

"A high-profile paper about ways to improve the rigor of research
papers has been retracted after critics attacked its own rigor. The
study, published on 9 November 2023 in Nature Human Behaviour,
purported to show the benefits of rigor-boosting measures including
so-called preregistration—announcing the goals, methods, and other
planned features of a study ahead of time—large sample sizes, and
methodological transparency. It reported that these measures boosted
the “replicability” of 16 findings in social-behavioral science to
86%, far more than the 30% to 70% reported in some analyses.

“Editors no longer have confidence in the reliability of the findings
and conclusions reported in this article,” the journal said in a
retraction note published yesterday.

“The concerns relate to lack of transparency and misstatement of the
hypotheses and predictions the reported metastudy was designed to
test; lack of preregistration for measures and analyses supporting the
titular claim (against statements asserting preregistration in the
published article); selection of outcome measures and analyses with
knowledge of the data; and incomplete reporting of data and analyses,”
the note says."

Full article here:
https://www.science.org/content/article/we-are-embarrassed-scientific-rigor-proponents-retract-paper-benefits-scientific-rigor

Cheers to all,
Bert