The Unjournal commissioned two expert evaluations of this paper—see here (and links within) for all content.
A brief summary from our abstract:
...Both evaluators offer some praise (of the importance of the topic and the transparent reporting), but they are critical on the whole, while offering substantive suggestions for improvement. Both criticize the lack of a systematic literature review, search strategy, and precise inclusion criteria. Jané presents a list of specific methodological concerns, particularly including guesswork/approximation in effect size coding, ignoring imputation variance, and neglecting key sources of study bias (such as selective outcome reporting).
I aim to discuss this further and put it up as a linkpost soon (once we add the evaluation managers’ discussion).
The Unjournal commissioned two expert evaluations of this paper—see here (and links within) for all content.
A brief summary from our abstract:
I aim to discuss this further and put it up as a linkpost soon (once we add the evaluation managers’ discussion).
(And the first author has indicated that they intend to provide a response soon. We will incorporate this in, of course).
We posted Seth’s response here