Paul Whaley
@dangerwhale.bsky.social
Research methods in environmental health. Can't write. Works with words anyway. Editor-in-Chief, Evidence-Based Toxicology. Other stuff too. https://linktr.ee/paulwhaley
But if you arrive late you don't have to listen to that insufferable Tory you seem to insist on hanging out with.
November 27, 2025 at 5:06 PM
But if you arrive late you don't have to listen to that insufferable Tory you seem to insist on hanging out with.
Probably World Economic Forum. And I'll have a WEF PUPPET mug please, it scans better than the other option.
November 27, 2025 at 5:02 PM
Probably World Economic Forum. And I'll have a WEF PUPPET mug please, it scans better than the other option.
Fundamentally, we get paid twice and the authors get two publications, so nobody is incentivised to get complicated with the versioning. If someone can only pay once, we can e.g. give a waiver for the stage 2 submission, so it's not too outrageously unequitable either.
November 26, 2025 at 7:59 PM
Fundamentally, we get paid twice and the authors get two publications, so nobody is incentivised to get complicated with the versioning. If someone can only pay once, we can e.g. give a waiver for the stage 2 submission, so it's not too outrageously unequitable either.
Being extremely British, the only way I can think of to handle an issue this fraught is to altogether avoid working with people with an umlaut in their name. Same strategy as never opening conversations by asking "how are you?", only trouble that way lies. 🤷
November 26, 2025 at 6:54 PM
Being extremely British, the only way I can think of to handle an issue this fraught is to altogether avoid working with people with an umlaut in their name. Same strategy as never opening conversations by asking "how are you?", only trouble that way lies. 🤷
They are two separate papers. I think there is a question as to whether they are versions of the same thing (they aren't, really). And anyway, in journal publishing paper versioning is not usually practically available. Not with my publishers, at least. Don't have the tech to do it.
November 26, 2025 at 2:31 PM
They are two separate papers. I think there is a question as to whether they are versions of the same thing (they aren't, really). And anyway, in journal publishing paper versioning is not usually practically available. Not with my publishers, at least. Don't have the tech to do it.
This is where the transphobia is just obvious, because of the (utterly predictable) move from "we want an evidence based approach with proper research" to "ban the trials" (which of course provide the evidence, and show it was a bad faith argument all along).
November 26, 2025 at 12:14 PM
This is where the transphobia is just obvious, because of the (utterly predictable) move from "we want an evidence based approach with proper research" to "ban the trials" (which of course provide the evidence, and show it was a bad faith argument all along).
We publish stage 1 then the complete stage 2 manuscript. At my previous journal (Environment International), when I was systematic reviews editor, we did the same.
November 26, 2025 at 12:11 PM
We publish stage 1 then the complete stage 2 manuscript. At my previous journal (Environment International), when I was systematic reviews editor, we did the same.
I saw a guy get completely destroyed cycling uphill over a frog. Bye-bye front wheel, bye-bye collarbone, bye-bye nose, and most of all bye-bye you hoppy little
November 10, 2025 at 7:53 PM
I saw a guy get completely destroyed cycling uphill over a frog. Bye-bye front wheel, bye-bye collarbone, bye-bye nose, and most of all bye-bye you hoppy little
Do you mean in a general competence sense? Because if you're asking me that question then yes, always. 😭
November 10, 2025 at 7:51 PM
Do you mean in a general competence sense? Because if you're asking me that question then yes, always. 😭
You basically can't submit to a journal in my field without the submission system screaming ORCID ORCID ORCID ORCID at you, so you just cave in eventually. It's not like it's complicated, even for people who annoy rats for a living.
November 10, 2025 at 5:07 PM
You basically can't submit to a journal in my field without the submission system screaming ORCID ORCID ORCID ORCID at you, so you just cave in eventually. It's not like it's complicated, even for people who annoy rats for a living.
I mean in philosophy they'd all be like "ooh but is the early career me the same person as the late career me, or should they have different identifiers" and "ooh if numbers are not real, how can an ID number be real" and so forth. Probably.
November 10, 2025 at 5:03 PM
I mean in philosophy they'd all be like "ooh but is the early career me the same person as the late career me, or should they have different identifiers" and "ooh if numbers are not real, how can an ID number be real" and so forth. Probably.
In my field, my estimate (based on co-authoring with a gazillion people and seeing lots of submitted papers as an editor) is that we have about 90% uptake on ORCID, I reckon. This would be European and American toxicologists and epidemiologists. I bet it varies a lot between fields.
November 10, 2025 at 5:01 PM
In my field, my estimate (based on co-authoring with a gazillion people and seeing lots of submitted papers as an editor) is that we have about 90% uptake on ORCID, I reckon. This would be European and American toxicologists and epidemiologists. I bet it varies a lot between fields.
Anyway, blah blah blah Paul is wanging on about words again.
November 10, 2025 at 4:58 PM
Anyway, blah blah blah Paul is wanging on about words again.
This helps translate terms between domains (e.g. the metascience terms used in epidemiology vs. psychology) rather than trying to control the terms a community uses (impossible). If you do it across enough users, then everyone learns *a lot* about the coherence of concepts in their domain.
November 10, 2025 at 4:57 PM
This helps translate terms between domains (e.g. the metascience terms used in epidemiology vs. psychology) rather than trying to control the terms a community uses (impossible). If you do it across enough users, then everyone learns *a lot* about the coherence of concepts in their domain.
I have skin in this game, as a part-time ontologist, but if one is going to decide what terms should be used in a field and what they mean - there are processes for this. It's called ontology. 🤷 "An ontology of metascience" (or just an ontology of preregistration) would be a useful thing to have.
November 10, 2025 at 4:56 PM
I have skin in this game, as a part-time ontologist, but if one is going to decide what terms should be used in a field and what they mean - there are processes for this. It's called ontology. 🤷 "An ontology of metascience" (or just an ontology of preregistration) would be a useful thing to have.
I think what is happening here is that COS is very used to talking to itself in complex jargon and isn't talking enough to its user community about how they speak. Which feels like a weird thing to say about COS, because they do a lot of great work, but I find their language is often a bit odd.
November 10, 2025 at 3:38 PM
I think what is happening here is that COS is very used to talking to itself in complex jargon and isn't talking enough to its user community about how they speak. Which feels like a weird thing to say about COS, because they do a lot of great work, but I find their language is often a bit odd.
Not to mention the corollary problem of "this broad umbrella term that covers several practices? use these 12 individual terms instead" also suggests an iffy model of language use.
November 10, 2025 at 3:37 PM
Not to mention the corollary problem of "this broad umbrella term that covers several practices? use these 12 individual terms instead" also suggests an iffy model of language use.
Also, the general strategy of saying "that word you now use that we asked you to use? Please stop" seems not to understand how people use language.
November 10, 2025 at 3:34 PM
Also, the general strategy of saying "that word you now use that we asked you to use? Please stop" seems not to understand how people use language.
Rice then bread I'll wager
November 3, 2025 at 1:27 PM
Rice then bread I'll wager
I think I'd be less frustrated if I didn't feel like the argument was lumping me in with fools, and the main thrust wasn't a straw-man representation of what preregistration is actually supposed to achieve. Even if the straw man is what the fools are presenting it to be.
November 2, 2025 at 6:30 PM
I think I'd be less frustrated if I didn't feel like the argument was lumping me in with fools, and the main thrust wasn't a straw-man representation of what preregistration is actually supposed to achieve. Even if the straw man is what the fools are presenting it to be.
As maybe, but the quote is not the point then is it? I think we all know that no measure in a complex system is likely to be sufficient or probably necessary, but it's got nothing to do with moon landings. If people are arguing that prereg should be a proxy for rigour, then those people are twits.
November 2, 2025 at 5:15 PM
As maybe, but the quote is not the point then is it? I think we all know that no measure in a complex system is likely to be sufficient or probably necessary, but it's got nothing to do with moon landings. If people are arguing that prereg should be a proxy for rigour, then those people are twits.