Quicksilver! Also about bike messengers (and, oddly, also about stock trading...very 80s)

In that case no ed boards are necessary, you can just ad-hoc review at a reasonable rate (don't ask me to define that!), although boards are generally a good way to ensure you get regular requests.

Depends on your goals. Do you have editorial aspirations, i.e., AE and EIC positions down the road? Then that is probably a good amount. For "visibility" or whatever? Then more than enough, probably too much.

Congrats, is it diamond open access? That was not clear from the post.

Numbers are fucked

Thanks for including the paper in your newsletter! (which is great, by the way.)

I made a whole doctoral-level assignment about the problems of reporting in meta-analysis (among other problems), called a "reverse meta-analysis." 14/14 students found some kind of errors, some of them major! docs.google.com/document/d/1...

I'm sure you know it, but I'm obliged to post the Jim O'Rourke version, which is fantastic (and from an all-time album): www.youtube.com/watch?v=folE...

[RTing only for the "Moin is onto something" bit, of course]

I thought about this point a bit more and I think Moin is onto something 😅 take randomized experiments, which are a huge hassle — yet social psych has determined that “this is what science looks like”, and so they be randomizing (for better or worse), no matter what.

indeed, doi.org/10.1098/rsos...

I don't know, that four-way interaction you tested may just be underpowered.

It still comes down to the matter of wanting to do it. We will do hard work when it aligns with our values and priorities, and then throw up our hands and say "too hard!" when it doesn't. This, from my "Slow Progress towards Diversification in Psychological Research" paper osf.io/preprints/ps...

they can't be stopped