I've read a couple of papers on external validity where they define it in a way that is much too restricted in my view. Doesn't sit right.

What sort of information? Anything: magnitude, sign, variation, heterogeneity (maybe a drug has more of an effect on young than old e.g.)

How do you evaluate that? The same way you evaluate any forecast.

We should at a minimum do what Nature does, in which the referee comments and author responses are published along with the paper.

Allows the paper itself to be an authoritative artifact while lifting the curtain on the debate that led its creation.

(quoting @dholtz.bsky.social )

4/

Take a look at artifact. This inscription is ostensibly part of a large stele which has evidently been broken into fragments and we are seeing one (middle) section. All the edges are broken and unfinished. Here is the problem - if this was a broken stele, some letters would be fragmentary.

As I explained here, you need to take into account study characteristics correlated with effect size and standard error when you use publication bias detection methods. anthonychigney.github.io/home/blog/Tr...

Read the study yourself. t.co/BoS1kMsYlg

They also cut the bottom off that figure.