Merge adversarial collaborations into the original-authors section (#55) - #72
Open
LukasWallrich wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Merge adversarial collaborations into the original-authors section (#55)#72LukasWallrich wants to merge 1 commit into
LukasWallrich wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The standalone
## Adversarial Collaborationssection inexecution_replications.qmdis merged, in abbreviated form, into the preceding subsection### Collaborating and Consulting with the Original Authors. Adversarial collaboration now appears there as one option for working with original authors, presented as particularly suited to conceptual replications where the two sides disagree about the theory or about the conditions under which the effect should hold. The paragraph keeps the joint design of a study both sides accept as a fair test, and the agreement on interpretation criteria before data collection. All three citations (@ClarkEtAl2022,@CowanEtAl2020,@CorcoranEtAl2023) are kept.The sentence on "red teams" is dropped as out of scope for a handbook on replication. Its citation was also wrong: it pointed at
LakensEtAl2018, which is the equivalence-testing tutorial. That key remains in use, correctly, in the equivalence testing section of the same chapter.No cross-reference pointed at the deleted heading. The chapter renders without citation or cross-reference warnings.
Closes #55