Reply to Ledgerwood: Predictions without Analysis Plans Are Inert. Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. 115(45):E10518. ![Reply to Ledgerwood: Predictions without Analysis Plans Are Inert [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex [Excerpt] Ledgerwood (1) argues that there are two independent uses of preregistration that are conflated in Nosek et al. (2) and elsewhere: ” Preregistering theoretical predictions enables theory falsifiability. Preregistering analysis plans enables type I error control.” We appreciate that the comment elevates the complementary roles of prediction and analysis plans in preregistration. We disagree that they are conflated in the sense of being ” two types of preregistration.” [] To enable theory falsification, we agree that a preregistration should offer a prediction derived from theory and provide the theoretical context. However, a prediction without an analysis plan is inert for falsification. An analysis plan is necessary to specify how the prediction will be tested with the observed data. So, the position that prediction and analysis plans are conflated is misleading – theory testing requires both. [...]
@article{nosekReplyLedgerwoodPredictions2018,
title = {Reply to {{Ledgerwood}}: Predictions without Analysis Plans Are Inert},
author = {Nosek, Brian A. and Ebersole, Charles R. and DeHaven, Alexander C. and Mellor, David T.},
date = {2018-11},
journaltitle = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
volume = {115},
pages = {E10518},
issn = {0027-8424},
doi = {10.1073/pnas.1816418115},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816418115},
abstract = {[Excerpt] Ledgerwood (1) argues that there are two independent uses of preregistration that are conflated in Nosek et al. (2) and elsewhere: ” Preregistering theoretical predictions enables theory falsifiability. Preregistering analysis plans enables type I error control.” We appreciate that the comment elevates the complementary roles of prediction and analysis plans in preregistration. We disagree that they are conflated in the sense of being ” two types of preregistration.”
[] To enable theory falsification, we agree that a preregistration should offer a prediction derived from theory and provide the theoretical context. However, a prediction without an analysis plan is inert for falsification. An analysis plan is necessary to specify how the prediction will be tested with the observed data. So, the position that prediction and analysis plans are conflated is misleading -- theory testing requires both. [...]},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14653311,bias-correction,cognitive-biases,epistemology,preregistration,research-management,scientific-communication,uncertainty,unknown},
number = {45}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"KZX9m6GDQNgyZPo4j","bibbaseid":"nosek-ebersole-dehaven-mellor-replytoledgerwoodpredictionswithoutanalysisplansareinert","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Nosek, B. A.","Ebersole, C. R.","DeHaven, A. C.","Mellor, D. T."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Reply to Ledgerwood: Predictions without Analysis Plans Are Inert","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Nosek"],"firstnames":["Brian","A."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Ebersole"],"firstnames":["Charles","R."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["DeHaven"],"firstnames":["Alexander","C."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Mellor"],"firstnames":["David","T."],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2018-11","journaltitle":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences","volume":"115","pages":"E10518","issn":"0027-8424","doi":"10.1073/pnas.1816418115","url":"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816418115","abstract":"[Excerpt] Ledgerwood (1) argues that there are two independent uses of preregistration that are conflated in Nosek et al. (2) and elsewhere: ” Preregistering theoretical predictions enables theory falsifiability. Preregistering analysis plans enables type I error control.” We appreciate that the comment elevates the complementary roles of prediction and analysis plans in preregistration. We disagree that they are conflated in the sense of being ” two types of preregistration.” [] To enable theory falsification, we agree that a preregistration should offer a prediction derived from theory and provide the theoretical context. However, a prediction without an analysis plan is inert for falsification. An analysis plan is necessary to specify how the prediction will be tested with the observed data. So, the position that prediction and analysis plans are conflated is misleading – theory testing requires both. [...]","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14653311,bias-correction,cognitive-biases,epistemology,preregistration,research-management,scientific-communication,uncertainty,unknown","number":"45","bibtex":"@article{nosekReplyLedgerwoodPredictions2018,\n title = {Reply to {{Ledgerwood}}: Predictions without Analysis Plans Are Inert},\n author = {Nosek, Brian A. and Ebersole, Charles R. and DeHaven, Alexander C. and Mellor, David T.},\n date = {2018-11},\n journaltitle = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},\n volume = {115},\n pages = {E10518},\n issn = {0027-8424},\n doi = {10.1073/pnas.1816418115},\n url = {https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816418115},\n abstract = {[Excerpt] Ledgerwood (1) argues that there are two independent uses of preregistration that are conflated in Nosek et al. (2) and elsewhere: ” Preregistering theoretical predictions enables theory falsifiability. Preregistering analysis plans enables type I error control.” We appreciate that the comment elevates the complementary roles of prediction and analysis plans in preregistration. We disagree that they are conflated in the sense of being ” two types of preregistration.”\n\n[] To enable theory falsification, we agree that a preregistration should offer a prediction derived from theory and provide the theoretical context. However, a prediction without an analysis plan is inert for falsification. An analysis plan is necessary to specify how the prediction will be tested with the observed data. So, the position that prediction and analysis plans are conflated is misleading -- theory testing requires both. [...]},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14653311,bias-correction,cognitive-biases,epistemology,preregistration,research-management,scientific-communication,uncertainty,unknown},\n number = {45}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Nosek, B. A.","Ebersole, C. R.","DeHaven, A. C.","Mellor, D. T."],"key":"nosekReplyLedgerwoodPredictions2018","id":"nosekReplyLedgerwoodPredictions2018","bibbaseid":"nosek-ebersole-dehaven-mellor-replytoledgerwoodpredictionswithoutanalysisplansareinert","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816418115"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-14653311","bias-correction","cognitive-biases","epistemology","preregistration","research-management","scientific-communication","uncertainty","unknown"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:17.320Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-14653311","bias-correction","cognitive-biases","epistemology","preregistration","research-management","scientific-communication","uncertainty","unknown"],"search_terms":["reply","ledgerwood","predictions","without","analysis","plans","inert","nosek","ebersole","dehaven","mellor"],"title":"Reply to Ledgerwood: Predictions without Analysis Plans Are Inert","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}