Thank you for your excellent work as editor, David. AMPPS is such a great asset for the field.

JW: We developed a tool, INSPECT SR, which looks at various red flags, such as retractions, inconsistencies between preregistration and publication, image duplications, means vs SDs, outcome data, etc.
We do give training workshops.
bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/3...
#IRICSydney

What more information could they possibly need to warrant a retraction? A signed confession presented in triplicate?

More fundamentally, every active scientist has been brought up in a system where The Drain was already normalized.

This system hasn't always existed. For-profit publishers are a recent invention. Their value proposition has always been awful, and now they are actively eroding trust in science.

5/n

"This pattern seems difficult to explain as the result of a natural process, as does the correlation between white blood cell count and patient ID number of 0.45."

Oh dear

I don't think this scenario is explicitly covered in the moderation case list but it sounds like a plausible use case so you might as well give it a try?

This is roughly what our ethics code says, in politer words. But getting either researchers or ethics committee members to pay any attention to it is another story....

Reasonably simple ones:

routledgeopenresearch.org/articles/2-3...

doi.org/10.5114/cipp...

More complicated:
doi.org/10.1002/ejsp...

doi.org/10.1111/bjso...

Do these suit?

May the search for moderators and mediators commence!

In psychology it's more like "anything with a vaguely right wing vibe"