@PetrTalantov It's not a bad idea. Some have already started https://t.co/SQk588GSpe

@IanSolagna @Stigni @pallonatefaccia Questo articolo spiega bene perché il nostro modello è il più adatto se parametro di interesse è l’effetto causale diretto del tono della pelle che rimane dopo avere eliminato fattori confondenti e variabili che influe

RT @crsuzh: 🫖This Thursday at 4:30PM we will start the Spring Semester of our @UZH_ch #ReproducibiliTea. Join us (in Room KOL-H-321) to dis…

RT @crsuzh: 🫖This Thursday at 4:30PM we will start the Spring Semester of our @UZH_ch #ReproducibiliTea. Join us (in Room KOL-H-321) to dis…

RT @crsuzh: 🫖This Thursday at 4:30PM we will start the Spring Semester of our @UZH_ch #ReproducibiliTea. Join us (in Room KOL-H-321) to dis…

RT @crsuzh: 🫖This Thursday at 4:30PM we will start the Spring Semester of our @UZH_ch #ReproducibiliTea. Join us (in Room KOL-H-321) to dis…

🫖This Thursday at 4:30PM we will start the Spring Semester of our @UZH_ch #ReproducibiliTea. Join us (in Room KOL-H-321) to discuss the credibility of the Social Sciences with Josef Brüderl and Katrin Auspurg https://t.co/kvHaYCBPDS Full Spring Program:

RT @PushFourLeft: @vwirtschafter This research is in itself disinformation for the astute reasons pointed out by the commenters. This is a…

@vwirtschafter This research is in itself disinformation for the astute reasons pointed out by the commenters. This is a good example of why 70% of psychology and sociology studies cannot be replicated. https://t.co/VPA6Z9dM8w

Bonus N papers until it stops letting me add them to the thread Has the Credibility of the Social Sciences Been Credibly Destroyed? Reanalyzing the “Many Analysts, One Data Set” Project https://t.co/D3j6mL1IQq

RT @R__INDEX: Multiverse of madness? Not so much. With a clear question and good data, we can get consistent results.

Multiverse of madness? Not so much. With a clear question and good data, we can get consistent results.

@BreznauNate See also the great paper by Katrin Auspurg @KAuspurg and Joseph Brüderl! https://t.co/H1t6MgjlzT

When you are at it, I also recommend taking a look at this paper by Josef Brüder and @KAuspurg who argue that it is important to clearly define the research question to obtain comparable results: https://t.co/WDKeaycsSa

@abtruk Un des problèmes de ce type d'analyse c'est que la question posée est souvent peu claire, et donc interprétée de façons différentes par les scientifiques. https://t.co/EjeXKLskP9

RT @FaffRobert: https://t.co/5rhjNrXa3Y @PitchResearch @PiR2e … take note from this paper that we need to choose & articulate clear & tight…

RT @DrXaverius: hace tiempo que se hizo esa replicación conceptual mostrando que era un asunto enteramente de la ambigüedad de la pregunta…

RT @DrXaverius: hace tiempo que se hizo esa replicación conceptual mostrando que era un asunto enteramente de la ambigüedad de la pregunta…

RT @DrXaverius: hace tiempo que se hizo esa replicación conceptual mostrando que era un asunto enteramente de la ambigüedad de la pregunta…

hace tiempo que se hizo esa replicación conceptual mostrando que era un asunto enteramente de la ambigüedad de la pregunta a investigar, y si se aclara mejor lo que se quiere comprobar la variabilidad es muchísimo menor https://t.co/5qfzw7yBmz https://t.co

RT @AndrsMontealegr: @lakens essentially the point made in this paper, which argues that the result of a prominent meta analyst paper are d…

RT @FaffRobert: https://t.co/5rhjNrXa3Y @PitchResearch @PiR2e … take note from this paper that we need to choose & articulate clear & tight…

RT @FaffRobert: https://t.co/5rhjNrXa3Y @PitchResearch @PiR2e … take note from this paper that we need to choose & articulate clear & tight…

RT @AndrsMontealegr: @lakens essentially the point made in this paper, which argues that the result of a prominent meta analyst paper are d…

https://t.co/5rhjNrXa3Y @PitchResearch @PiR2e … take note from this paper that we need to choose & articulate clear & tight Research Questions! This will help achieve Research Credibility…

@drjpmills Researcher degrees of freedom are p-hacking. That is not what happens here. Someone just linked to this paper that makes exactly my point https://t.co/zuASWkbDfX

@esdalmaijer @cbokhove @TomRhysMarshall It seems there is already a paper showing the many analysts variability is caused just by a vague question. So I guess all that is left is making people aware of that paper and the problems with the original https://

@lakens essentially the point made in this paper, which argues that the result of a prominent meta analyst paper are due to different interpretation of an ambiguous research question: https://t.co/g8zL0Do3ts

@SimonSchw4b @EJWagenmakers @a_sarafoglou @BalazsAczel Other support for this idea [1] https://t.co/XWTK1mUTPI [2] https://t.co/aITBnzzyoI I suspect that within reporting guidelines, in many areas, there is still considerable ambiguity about the possibl

RT @Paul_hph: @BalazsAczel @Nature @EJWagenmakers @a_sarafoglou Interesting. Curious what you make of this objection by Auspurg and Brüderl…

@BalazsAczel @Nature @EJWagenmakers @a_sarafoglou Interesting. Curious what you make of this objection by Auspurg and Brüderl (2021) that variability in outcomes are more driven by differences in interpretation of the research question rather than differen

RT @MethodsNET: Excellent thread on estimands in quantitative research, an issue that has rightly received more attention lately https://t.…

Excellent thread on estimands in quantitative research, an issue that has rightly received more attention lately https://t.co/m8RugsbLD4 https://t.co/8IyMOjAYeZ IR

It seems that result of retrospective analysis depends on how you define research questions. What do you think?https://t.co/wadv8zXlq6 @APisaryuk @MarinaTeterinaA @StepanenkoMD @ODzhioeva @EnginoevST @AndreasGevaert @JonMinton @dafna_fn @jd_wilko

@drjohnm @BrianNosek Thanks for sharing. Here is one more article which has shown that result of a retrospective analysis depends on how we perform it and how we define the research question https://t.co/wadv8zXlq6

@JohnHolbein1 I'm not sure about this particular result. Do you know this paper here, which discusses excactly this estimand? https://t.co/Ero9P8j4NU

@paulrconnor @flourn0 I think a few papers already cover this, such as “what is your estimand” (https://t.co/fYqpPRdl4S) and the critique of the many analysts paper (https://t.co/0VouvbpweS).>

@EpiEllie Thanks for sharing. Here is one more paper about the importance of asking questions clearly https://t.co/wadv8zXlq6

@Jimnosredna @causalinf @nickchk Here's a multiverse example https://t.co/SQk588GSpe

RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…

RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…

RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…

RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…

RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…

RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…

RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…

RT @rlmcelreath: Read this today (we discuss in dept reading group later this week). I liked the original & didn't think it was so damning…

RT @rlmcelreath: Read this today (we discuss in dept reading group later this week). I liked the original & didn't think it was so damning…

RT @GustavNilsonne: Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (…

RT @sebcos: awesome thread on meta-science and the " many analysts, one dataset" controversy

RT @cara__jackson: Paired reads! Many Analysts, One Data Set: Making Transparent How Variations in Analytic Choices Affect Results https:…

RT @cara__jackson: Paired reads! Many Analysts, One Data Set: Making Transparent How Variations in Analytic Choices Affect Results https:…

Paired reads! Many Analysts, One Data Set: Making Transparent How Variations in Analytic Choices Affect Results https://t.co/QJGwdjNAo5 Reanalyzing “Many Analysts, One Data Set” Project https://t.co/X0rNrBPtue

RT @samdschmid: my understanding so far: rigorous conceptualization would solve a lot of problems! cannot wait to fully read this. will be…

RT @ProfReinemann: Super interesting research from @lmu sociology colleagues Katrin Auspurg and Joseph Brüderl...

RT @ProfReinemann: Super interesting research from @lmu sociology colleagues Katrin Auspurg and Joseph Brüderl...

Super interesting research from @lmu sociology colleagues Katrin Auspurg and Joseph Brüderl...

"Our conclusion is therefore that the CSI showed that nonrigorous social research that does not start with a clear research question provides divergent results. However, rigorous social science research is able to provide a more consistent answer."

Evaluating the credibility of social sciences: https://t.co/5pVdgGNAEs

my understanding so far: rigorous conceptualization would solve a lot of problems! cannot wait to fully read this. will be of interest to many @beach_methodman @ingorohlfing @ECPRMethods @APSAtweets @europsa @IMISCOE @METHatMIG @mpimmg @eui_sps

Has the Credibility of the Social Sciences Been Credibly Destroyed? Reanalyzing the “Many Analysts, One Data Set” Project #metascience https://t.co/eesVQvVtSn

RT @repTeaTokyo: 2本目は、Silberzanhらの研究を批判するもの。Auspurg, K., & Brüderl, J. (2021). Has the Credibility of the Social Sciences Been Credibly Des…

2本目は、Silberzanhらの研究を批判するもの。Auspurg, K., & Brüderl, J. (2021). Has the Credibility of the Social Sciences Been Credibly Destroyed? Reanalyzing the “Many Analysts, One Data Set” Project. Socius, 7, 23780231211024421. https://t.co/2WKfu3hj8I

@KreidlerKate there's a follow-up study about that study if you're interested: https://t.co/0O1UOQYDuI

RT @FaffRobert: @PiR2e

@PiR2e

RT @GustavNilsonne: Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (…

RT @GustavNilsonne: Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (…

RT @sebcos: awesome thread on meta-science and the " many analysts, one dataset" controversy

we have recursively moved on to 'Many Analysts, One "Many Analysts, One Data Set"'

RT @GustavNilsonne: Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (…

RT @GustavNilsonne: Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (…

RT @GustavNilsonne: Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (…

Very interesting thread.

RT @GustavNilsonne: Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (…

of course not – “we” just need to adopt a hyper-WEIRD methodology involving “a clear research question, a precise definition of the parameter of interest, and theory-guided causal reasoning” https://t.co/8l1Z3KncgT

awesome thread on meta-science and the " many analysts, one dataset" controversy

RT @GustavNilsonne: Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (…

RT @GustavNilsonne: Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (…

RT @GustavNilsonne: Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (…

Very good thread...

RT @GustavNilsonne: Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (…

@RickCarlsson Hah! Super relevant to this thread I read earlier: https://t.co/dS9yOgxyQP

RT @GustavNilsonne: Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (…

RT @GustavNilsonne: Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (…

Interesting follow-up on and interesting study!

RT @GustavNilsonne: Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (…

RT @GustavNilsonne: Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (…

RT @GustavNilsonne: Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (…

Now I have read the provocative paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Brüderl on interpreting multi-analyst studies. A thread: (1/x) https://t.co/3QH4Kz07Zy https://t.co/1CBgpqcFM5

RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…

RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…

RT @Ted_Underwood: You prob. remember the experiment where 29 teams came up with widely varying conclusions. This explains why, and it’s a…

RT @TimoRoettger: Great read with tons of insight relevant to the language sciences. The authors identify different ways of statistically i…

RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…

RT @BrianNosek: New paper by @KAuspurg and Josef Bruderl critiques interpretations of Many Analysts paper with multiverse reanalysis: https…

RT @TimoRoettger: Great read with tons of insight relevant to the language sciences. The authors identify different ways of statistically i…

RT @StefanoCoretta: Interesting alternative take on the "Many Analysts, One Data Set" project. The main takeaway from this and the origin…

RT @TimoRoettger: Great read with tons of insight relevant to the language sciences. The authors identify different ways of statistically i…

RT @StefanoCoretta: Interesting alternative take on the "Many Analysts, One Data Set" project. The main takeaway from this and the origin…