I have an ORCID, but rarely use it unless required. It's not clear to me what the benefits are for scholars. What do you see as primary reasons to use? (Honest question)

Hi Maria, One of the positions says that it is in psychology. How broadly defined is that? Is it still focused in cognitive psych?

Great work, Erin!

Break your writing tasks down into teeny tiny parts. That way when you're sitting down to work, you're not writing a whole paper or book, you're writing a specific paragraph or section.

I wasn't talking about open science advocates. I said "some people" by whom I meant many of the people whom I regularly encounter (students, colleagues). My understanding was that you were writing about the limitations of preregistration and I didn't see that limitation represented in the comments

I totally agree with this perspective and do not think that it undermines the value of preregistration n general. But, it shouldn't reduce our skepticism of findings that are too good to be true, just because they are preregistered.

Some people see preregistration as a panacea for many/most of the problems in science. I don't think it would stop a Stapel-type person. So, while I think it is generally beneficial for most scholars, it is limited when it comes to fraud

A limitation of preregistration is that it doesn't prevent malicious actors from publishing questionable research. A motivated scholar could submit multiple preregistrations and only report the one that best matches their results. We still need to be vigilant when we see results that are surprising.

I tell them that if the study involves a p-value, then there is a probability that the finding is wrong (e.g., a Type I error). Thus we shouldn't use a word like 'prove'

The one I try to prep students for is: "What questions do you have for me?" Students are used to preparing answers, but not preparing questions. Yet, asking questions is essential to being an academic