What’s the reason to not demand that all experiments be videoed in their entirety?
You seem to be trying to accommodate the way scientists and journals already operate:
Sometimes, the proposal might not end up as a wholly accurate description of the actual experiment, for a variety of reasons.
It might not be bad to accommodate them, but the primary and central purpose of science is to know – to produce shared knowledge of the world.
I think an ideal journal would allow scientists to change their registered proposal – possibly. That would also be recorded in the journal’s register, if they accept the changes.
Maybe I’m in a bad mood, but it’s especially galling how terrible all of this still, e.g. NOT sharing all scientific results with the public for publicly funded research.
Why can’t all of this be done in the open, on the researcher’s blog? They register a proposal by publishing a post describing it, in as much detail as is feasible, e.g. including code they’re registering to use on the data they collect. They record video of the entire experiment (where feasible); they publish that to YouTube. They publish all of their data. They perform their analysis – the exact one described in their registration post – and then publish a blog post, or a whole series of posts, about their analysis.
If the researchers want to change a registered, but un-performed, experiment, they publish a post describing their changes, in comparable detail as originally.
Blog posts don’t need to be open for anyone to comment on. Researchers could explicitly invite other individuals or ‘anyone with X degree in Y from an accredited institution recognized by professional association Z’.
The relevant people could comment on the registered proposal, on registered changes, on the documentation of the performance of the experiment itself, and on interpretation of the registered analysis.
What’s the reason to not demand that all experiments be videoed in their entirety?
You seem to be trying to accommodate the way scientists and journals already operate:
It might not be bad to accommodate them, but the primary and central purpose of science is to know – to produce shared knowledge of the world.
I think an ideal journal would allow scientists to change their registered proposal – possibly. That would also be recorded in the journal’s register, if they accept the changes.
Maybe I’m in a bad mood, but it’s especially galling how terrible all of this still, e.g. NOT sharing all scientific results with the public for publicly funded research.
Why can’t all of this be done in the open, on the researcher’s blog? They register a proposal by publishing a post describing it, in as much detail as is feasible, e.g. including code they’re registering to use on the data they collect. They record video of the entire experiment (where feasible); they publish that to YouTube. They publish all of their data. They perform their analysis – the exact one described in their registration post – and then publish a blog post, or a whole series of posts, about their analysis.
If the researchers want to change a registered, but un-performed, experiment, they publish a post describing their changes, in comparable detail as originally.
Blog posts don’t need to be open for anyone to comment on. Researchers could explicitly invite other individuals or ‘anyone with X degree in Y from an accredited institution recognized by professional association Z’.
The relevant people could comment on the registered proposal, on registered changes, on the documentation of the performance of the experiment itself, and on interpretation of the registered analysis.
Why do we need journals? Why do we want journals?