Abstract

In this paper, I revisit my earlier proposal for Results Blind Publishing (RBP) and have added some new perspectives and qualifications regarding it. RBP is a suggestion that research journals decide on publication of submitted manuscripts based on reviewing only their Introduction section (which suggests the substantive importance of the research question addressed by the study) and Methods section (which suggests how likely the study validly answers that question), as a means of avoiding publication bias based on what the results are claimed to be, a bias that exacerbates replicability problems. I differentiate the separate questions of: (1) what should be the criteria for a positive as opposed to null research finding versus (2) what should be the criteria for publication of manuscripts. I believe the conflation of these two different questions fuels some of the controversies and confusion concerning null hypothesis significance testing and similar issues. I also compare the pros and cons of RBP versus the practice of preregistering studies. Further, I cite a potentially serious problem with RBP and suggest a fix-up involving a decision theoretic approach to manuscript publication.

摘要

在本文中，我重新审视了我之前关于结果盲出版 (RBP) 的提议，并添加了一些关于它的新观点和资格。RBP 建议研究期刊仅根据引言部分（表明研究解决的研究问题的实质性重要性）和方法部分（表明研究有效回答该问题的可能性）来决定发表提交的手稿，作为避免基于结果声称的发表偏差的一种手段，这种偏差会加剧可复制性问题。我区分以下单独的问题：（1）什么应该是阳性而不是无效研究发现的标准与（2）什么应该是发表手稿的标准。我相信这两个不同问题的混为一谈会引发关于零假设显着性检验和类似问题的一些争议和困惑。我还比较了 RBP 与预先注册研究实践的优缺点。此外，我引用了 RBP 的一个潜在严重问题，并提出了一个涉及手稿出版决策理论方法的修复。