This, probably in combination with some R+R demands having marginal benefit for improving a manuscript.

Dann habe ich eine Ahnung, was das Bundesland angeht. Es sei denn, alle haben mittlerweile Scientologyfragebögen. So oder so, mein Glückwunsch und gut, dass eine deutsche Uni dich gewinnen konnte.

Wo geht es hin?

I forgot about this or missed it when reading the text. Technically, this seems correct, but besides everything else, the equal weighting of models is not plausible. Did anyone ever do this? I better not check.

This is a very useful, non-technical discussion of the multiverse analysis. Personally, I like the "Don't take it too seriously" attitude, though it is probably unsatisfying for someone who thinks about using it and wants a more definitive answers (sometimes, this is not what one gets)

It is good more attention is paid to power.
In what way do we get to our senses? That more studies estimate power, or acknowledge that power is likely to be low?

Good point, this is plausible to me.

I think this is unlikely to happen, but who knows. Let's see how this plays out at Small Business Economics and how the first registered report will look like. 2/

Sorry, I was fully focused on the prereg part, not the reports part. Right, results-blind review would likely still work. Theoretically, if you were submitting your code with the registered report and the original data were sitting in some repo, a reviewer could quickly do the analysis. 1/

Not to downplay the value of the format, which is great, but these kind of studies do not open much opportunity for replications because new data would be hard to collect or it may not be possible when the original study already worked with all population-level data 3/

the data little insightful. It does not mean the data do not exist at the time of prereg, but there should be some credibility of the inaccessibility part.
Maybe the editors have a different view because, according to the online-first articles, most seem to work with survey, firm or country data 2/

I don't know, we should ask the editors what they mean to be sure. "and/or in a different context" does not read like new data to me when they refer to new data before that.
I am fine with anyone having a different read of and view on this. Personally, I find prereg with ex ante accessibility of 1/

The FORRT Replication Database has received a massive overhaul (FReD 2.0): We double-coded and validated all data from scratch and extended it in the course of a one-year-partnership with the @cos.io. We just switched to a faster interface thanks to @lukaswallrich.bsky.social’s wizardry.

Vielleicht kann zur Abwechslung mal jemand Niesen?