A good example of constructive debate and a GREAT example of transparency. It shows how methodologists can implement a fruitful dialectic process which push forward our knowledge, lay the ground for consensus on research methods, and improve science in general. It seems better than peer review.

This is very reassuring! Thanks for the info

Yet, editors know

It's not impossible to guess who the author is from an anonymous manuscript. You might not be 100% sure but you can have a relatively small set of "suspects"...

[guesswork alert] I have the impression some people get favorable reviewers' evaluation based on their reputational prestige. I really really hope my impression is wrong! Is it?

This man is unbelievably dumb and unbelievably orange. We should make #dumborange a trend so viral that paint makers have no choice but add it to their pallettes

Got it, sounds reasonable! Thanks a lot!

So let me ask you this. Is it better something new and untested, or proving an old finding wrong? If the first is better, "how new" should it be? If the second is better, should new findings improve the theory or discarding the old one is enough?

I get that.. I'm aware it is not that easy. That's why I resorted to collecting advice. Collective wisdom is a thing! 😊

So it's about how general the phenomenon is? For example, if something applies to any population, the research is more important, correct?