Paul Whaley
@dangerwhale.bsky.social
Research methods in environmental health. Can't write. Works with words anyway. Editor-in-Chief, Evidence-Based Toxicology. Other stuff too. https://linktr.ee/paulwhaley
I saw a guy get completely destroyed cycling uphill over a frog. Bye-bye front wheel, bye-bye collarbone, bye-bye nose, and most of all bye-bye you hoppy little
November 10, 2025 at 7:53 PM
I saw a guy get completely destroyed cycling uphill over a frog. Bye-bye front wheel, bye-bye collarbone, bye-bye nose, and most of all bye-bye you hoppy little
Do you mean in a general competence sense? Because if you're asking me that question then yes, always. 😭
November 10, 2025 at 7:51 PM
Do you mean in a general competence sense? Because if you're asking me that question then yes, always. 😭
You basically can't submit to a journal in my field without the submission system screaming ORCID ORCID ORCID ORCID at you, so you just cave in eventually. It's not like it's complicated, even for people who annoy rats for a living.
November 10, 2025 at 5:07 PM
You basically can't submit to a journal in my field without the submission system screaming ORCID ORCID ORCID ORCID at you, so you just cave in eventually. It's not like it's complicated, even for people who annoy rats for a living.
I mean in philosophy they'd all be like "ooh but is the early career me the same person as the late career me, or should they have different identifiers" and "ooh if numbers are not real, how can an ID number be real" and so forth. Probably.
November 10, 2025 at 5:03 PM
I mean in philosophy they'd all be like "ooh but is the early career me the same person as the late career me, or should they have different identifiers" and "ooh if numbers are not real, how can an ID number be real" and so forth. Probably.
In my field, my estimate (based on co-authoring with a gazillion people and seeing lots of submitted papers as an editor) is that we have about 90% uptake on ORCID, I reckon. This would be European and American toxicologists and epidemiologists. I bet it varies a lot between fields.
November 10, 2025 at 5:01 PM
In my field, my estimate (based on co-authoring with a gazillion people and seeing lots of submitted papers as an editor) is that we have about 90% uptake on ORCID, I reckon. This would be European and American toxicologists and epidemiologists. I bet it varies a lot between fields.
Anyway, blah blah blah Paul is wanging on about words again.
November 10, 2025 at 4:58 PM
Anyway, blah blah blah Paul is wanging on about words again.
This helps translate terms between domains (e.g. the metascience terms used in epidemiology vs. psychology) rather than trying to control the terms a community uses (impossible). If you do it across enough users, then everyone learns *a lot* about the coherence of concepts in their domain.
November 10, 2025 at 4:57 PM
This helps translate terms between domains (e.g. the metascience terms used in epidemiology vs. psychology) rather than trying to control the terms a community uses (impossible). If you do it across enough users, then everyone learns *a lot* about the coherence of concepts in their domain.
I have skin in this game, as a part-time ontologist, but if one is going to decide what terms should be used in a field and what they mean - there are processes for this. It's called ontology. 🤷 "An ontology of metascience" (or just an ontology of preregistration) would be a useful thing to have.
November 10, 2025 at 4:56 PM
I have skin in this game, as a part-time ontologist, but if one is going to decide what terms should be used in a field and what they mean - there are processes for this. It's called ontology. 🤷 "An ontology of metascience" (or just an ontology of preregistration) would be a useful thing to have.
I think what is happening here is that COS is very used to talking to itself in complex jargon and isn't talking enough to its user community about how they speak. Which feels like a weird thing to say about COS, because they do a lot of great work, but I find their language is often a bit odd.
November 10, 2025 at 3:38 PM
I think what is happening here is that COS is very used to talking to itself in complex jargon and isn't talking enough to its user community about how they speak. Which feels like a weird thing to say about COS, because they do a lot of great work, but I find their language is often a bit odd.
Not to mention the corollary problem of "this broad umbrella term that covers several practices? use these 12 individual terms instead" also suggests an iffy model of language use.
November 10, 2025 at 3:37 PM
Not to mention the corollary problem of "this broad umbrella term that covers several practices? use these 12 individual terms instead" also suggests an iffy model of language use.
Also, the general strategy of saying "that word you now use that we asked you to use? Please stop" seems not to understand how people use language.
November 10, 2025 at 3:34 PM
Also, the general strategy of saying "that word you now use that we asked you to use? Please stop" seems not to understand how people use language.
Rice then bread I'll wager
November 3, 2025 at 1:27 PM
Rice then bread I'll wager
I think I'd be less frustrated if I didn't feel like the argument was lumping me in with fools, and the main thrust wasn't a straw-man representation of what preregistration is actually supposed to achieve. Even if the straw man is what the fools are presenting it to be.
November 2, 2025 at 6:30 PM
I think I'd be less frustrated if I didn't feel like the argument was lumping me in with fools, and the main thrust wasn't a straw-man representation of what preregistration is actually supposed to achieve. Even if the straw man is what the fools are presenting it to be.
As maybe, but the quote is not the point then is it? I think we all know that no measure in a complex system is likely to be sufficient or probably necessary, but it's got nothing to do with moon landings. If people are arguing that prereg should be a proxy for rigour, then those people are twits.
November 2, 2025 at 5:15 PM
As maybe, but the quote is not the point then is it? I think we all know that no measure in a complex system is likely to be sufficient or probably necessary, but it's got nothing to do with moon landings. If people are arguing that prereg should be a proxy for rigour, then those people are twits.
I really don't get the intensity of the beef with preregistration. Prospectively registering a study makes a lot of sense. Are we arguing the preregistration of clinical trials was somehow a bad idea and achieved nothing? Because that seems like an example that needs to be on the list.
November 2, 2025 at 4:32 PM
I really don't get the intensity of the beef with preregistration. Prospectively registering a study makes a lot of sense. Are we arguing the preregistration of clinical trials was somehow a bad idea and achieved nothing? Because that seems like an example that needs to be on the list.
Except, most of those are not examples of scientific experiments, were steps forward in progress so large they barely needed an experiment, & preregistration is largely concerned with people fudging comparative effect size studies in small-increment research in a completely different social context.
November 2, 2025 at 4:31 PM
Except, most of those are not examples of scientific experiments, were steps forward in progress so large they barely needed an experiment, & preregistration is largely concerned with people fudging comparative effect size studies in small-increment research in a completely different social context.
I remember at least @mattgreencomedy.com and @youngvulgarian.marieleconte.com and various people in their circle getting understandably quite cross about all this, maybe this will be of interest / some minimal use.
October 31, 2025 at 1:56 PM
I remember at least @mattgreencomedy.com and @youngvulgarian.marieleconte.com and various people in their circle getting understandably quite cross about all this, maybe this will be of interest / some minimal use.
Checklists are fine! The important thing is to distinguish the problem of having the right things on the list from the problem of who checks them and how. Most research checklists are ineffectual because they are designed to be short enough for humans to check. LLMs and other tools change this.
October 30, 2025 at 4:11 PM
Checklists are fine! The important thing is to distinguish the problem of having the right things on the list from the problem of who checks them and how. Most research checklists are ineffectual because they are designed to be short enough for humans to check. LLMs and other tools change this.
I find this whole area very interesting and think about it a lot, so if you ever want to chat about it just let me know!
October 29, 2025 at 2:06 PM
I find this whole area very interesting and think about it a lot, so if you ever want to chat about it just let me know!
In that case the whole SEVCO methods ontology project should be of interest to you. And this paper we just published, where we are using the SEVCO protocol to create a methods ontology for the GRADE Approach. It might give you some more ideas. www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
GRADE concept paper 9: rationale and process for creating a GRADE Ontology
As the rate of research production accelerates, the ability to efficiently and unambiguously communicate judgments relating to the synthesis, evaluati…
www.sciencedirect.com
October 29, 2025 at 2:06 PM
In that case the whole SEVCO methods ontology project should be of interest to you. And this paper we just published, where we are using the SEVCO protocol to create a methods ontology for the GRADE Approach. It might give you some more ideas. www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
I like the idea of a database of methods. I think one way to do this (other options are available) is to have a controlled vocabulary of statistical methods and consistently index this in article metadata - that would allow the methods to be counted. Have you seen this? fevir.net/resources/Co...
FEvIR Platform
Making science machine-interpretable
fevir.net
October 29, 2025 at 11:15 AM
I like the idea of a database of methods. I think one way to do this (other options are available) is to have a controlled vocabulary of statistical methods and consistently index this in article metadata - that would allow the methods to be counted. Have you seen this? fevir.net/resources/Co...
100% it's the right exploiting a misperception. Some of it is just plain racism, homophobia, etc. Sometimes people are getting duped, and these people can be argued around.
October 26, 2025 at 1:59 PM
100% it's the right exploiting a misperception. Some of it is just plain racism, homophobia, etc. Sometimes people are getting duped, and these people can be argued around.