I think desk rejection is often too ideosyncratic so if that happens, I do not blame authors. An editor might like a paper, or not, and I am not even sure some have high test-retest reliability 🤣 But desk rejection is also fast, and wastes little time.

I am serious! At leat, it is how I have been publishing. For over 100 papers, I think maybe 1 papers has had more than 1 rejection (the majority none) - and that paper was defending dichotomous claims based on hypothesis tests, which I think is one of my best (but contentious) papers.

It would be good to track peer review history. Sure, you can work in a contentious area and have only malicious peers that unfairly review. But be honest with yourself. Too many people clog up the system with immature versions of papers, and their drag on the system should be stopped.

There are so many folks who submit, submit, submit, and always decline reviews. Happy to use the resources for their own gain but unwilling to put in effort themselves. This seems like at least a partially solvable problem.

That is actually from 1966, and the same paper the screenshot comes from :)

The crisis started exactly because of zimbardo and milgram. I guess you are a good example of how clueless most researchers are today about history (and how opiniated they can be, nevertheless!).

This is a very good point. To be clear, I will teach this slide as an example of why it is difficult to get strong meta scientific evidence - so, not as clear proof of a benefit!

Beyond that, fully agree (and I will teach it in the lecture) this is a correlational study, only 1, and not strong evidence. I like the starting year plot, will add it!

But @aurelienallard.bsky.social , this is *study registry* and not preregistration. The study is public and the primary endpoint is specified. In psych preregs, people can Hide the registration. In medicine they can not. Huge difference.

🙏