There are some complications. E.g. for self-collected survey data (like Qualtrics), you often have to do initial cleaning for confidentiality before sharing, including removing identifying information. @larsvil.bsky.social has some guidance on that: labordynamicsinstitute.github.io/reproducibil...

At @apsrjournal.bsky.social we require the raw data (or links to it) whenever legally & ethically possible & always require data cleaning code. There's a lot of room for errors in data cleaning, it needs to be traceable

I just tested with Windows Narrator and README is read as we'd speak it. I'd assume it's the same for the other standard readers, but not sure.

I'd say 1-2 presidential elections. An Orban or Erdogan government that stays in power for only four years is still bad & illiberal, but not consolidated electoral authoritarianism (see Poland, e.g.)

Author published an open access preprint: osf.io/preprints/so...

Sorry, looked too quickly. There's not perfect match currently available. Feminist Theory is pretty close -- it has a comma before the year in text & uses single quotation marks, but both of those are easy to fix in the style.

Even more of a no brainer then! Have fun (I'll go meet a friend to play cello flute duets in a bit)

Absolutely not -- many music teachers have adult beginner students, especially guitar & piano. You're obviously not going to become a virtuoso, but you can get to reasonable goals in not unreasonable time.

You mean the Stanford Enclopedia, yes? That's a version of Chicago author date, probably 16th edition

The stainless steel dispersion plate is 100% worth it if you don't have it already. Ditto for the silicone gasket. I honestly haven't noticed a huge effect w the fancy screen.
(And yes, I do realize I'm proving your point)

3/3 Theory&Society, you'll recall, was taken over ~2 years ago by a group closely associated with 'heterodox' scholarship. The piece fits my continuing impression of much of the heterodox crowd that they're very much willing to lower standards if it fits _their_ ideological predispositions.

2/3 Also, measured by its own standards, the article:
- does share data BUT didn't pre-register analyses; doesn't use counterfactual causal methods, DAGs or anything else associated w the credibility revolution, so doesn't do well either. Overall, the causal analysis is _very_ weak.