It's hard to take the journal seriously when the editors don't take their jobs seriously.

Authors we could find on here: @thatadammorris.bsky.social @mjcrockett.bsky.social
reply with more if you can find them!

That one study that replicated is Study 2a from Nguyen, T. et al. (2019). Metamotivational knowledge of the role of high-level and low-level construal in goal-relevant task performance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 117, 876.

The inconsistencies we document, even between different measures of the same form of overconfidence, are hard to reconcile with a simple version of the claim that overconfidence is some sort of stable trait.

On YouTube: youtu.be/zhq68fRFz8o?...

On spotify: open.spotify.com/episode/3u5u...

No, when we submitted this paper I thought it was great, and was vexed by our negative reviews. But then I am usually inordinately fond of my own writing and my own projects; if I weren't, I wouldn't pursue them.

I agree that peer reviews should all be public. But I also know that smart colleagues disagree with me, and there are arguments on both sides of that one.

Thanks! I'm glad to know of your result.

Yes, the peer review process is fraught, noisy, and imperfect. But I'm ready to question your assumption that "ivy" scholars necessarily have an advantage. I think Blank (1991) suggests that weak research by prominent scholars might be judged especially harshly.

Thank you for your diligent work to identify, document, and report the truth of this effect! I salute you and your team for having the persistence to carry this through to publication, when we did not.