I'm aware of pilots/plans where applicants have an option to submit their plan as stage 1 draft, this makes sense imo (raise awareness etc) but nuance is so important in such changes

Do you know if there's an English version available or coming out?

meanwhile, hoping the funders' own publication portals and diamond venues solve the ACP issue (as some already do to some degree)

We likewise found a steep increase in failed controls (0.1>2.3>12.8>22.7) the more severely ppl replied to a single-item tech problems question-- this could be intentional bad responding too but nonetheless critical to be aware of

i understand it's difficult to run large data collections like this (especially in HBSC) but that's exactly what's wrong today: brute force large datasets with whatever measures & then think later if any of the investment was worth anything

funnily enough, the paper says the scale (IGDS) is one of the "better functioning measurements" and cites our paper-- in our paper we actually found only 1 of 9 symptoms measured in a content valid way 🫠 (also curious how translation across 12 languages took place)

it can be interesting to add multiple items even when they don't signal problems (especially if we take networks seriously) but the 2013 symptom list, sketched in dsm-5 appendix, is way outdated and never worked tbh

a) avoid Finnish food
b) many nice museums, Villa Gyllenberg & Didrichsen worth a visit for the island space alone
c) best coffee: Päiväkahvibaari 1 (vallila)
d) library Oodi
e) saunas, Sompasauna 24/7 is classic (recently moved tho, not sure how good the new location is)

Can they argue the ad is for single-player as long as multiplayer not mentioned? (assuming some purchases will be offered in single mode too tho)

currently editors (handling tons of papers) must heavily trust reviewers as they cannot be experts in everything-- a move toward more distributed editorial labor (in exchange for less reviewing) expects more human scrutiny from topic-fit editors who'd then also manage less papers on average

attention to alternatives is good as it contributes to gradual, slow changes that over years (decades) can lead to system level changes too-- but it's those institutions that offer alternatives which need to become more sustainable, visible, and "prestige" for progress to keep happening

the right solution would be ofc to go back to the drawing board and figure out what's the state of art in theory & practice, but the structures we have don't allow it: authors need to get their paper out to satisfy the funder who gave money to do the flawed test 🫠

As RR editor/reviewer I've linked this paper to authors many times when they start with a 12-hypotheses testing plan-- alas, it isn't merely a H-testing issue but usually reflects how research programs are broken deep down, trying to ask RQs that simply cannot be answered by any effect size

Thought about this plenty over the last years; imo it's already a huge step to actively reflect on it-- grey areas will always be massive & impossible to justify clearcut lines, but openly disclosing humility for effect meaning immediately increases my trust for authors/results

I've met some of the folks running it & they seemed professionals with shared values-- planning to submit my own next ms there ( they don't have much marketing power so it's a clear tradeoff for less reach but i can afford it at this point)

www.tuni.fi/en/library/t...