That’s also good to see, and I’d appreciate examples! But I think it’s a bit less interesting/useful to me because it’s what I would expect in general.
I see a lot of people claiming that EA has better research than the norm, others claiming worse than the norm, so I’m curious which opinion actually seems more popular among scholars (vs. the neutral “yeah, this is fine, that’s why the journal accepted it” reaction I’d expect to be more common than either of the other reactions).
Ah, that makes sense. I was thinking more about the detailed points reviewers might make about specifics from particular EA research, rather than getting data on the general quality of EA research to inform how seriously to take other such research (which also seems very/more valuable).
Data on “general quality” was my goal here, yes, albeit split up by source (since “EA research” includes everything from published journal articles to informal blog posts).
Specifics are valuable too, but in my work, I often have to decide which recent research to share, and how widely; I don’t expect experts to weigh in very quickly, but a general sense of quality from different sources may help me make better judgments around what to share.
That’s also good to see, and I’d appreciate examples! But I think it’s a bit less interesting/useful to me because it’s what I would expect in general.
I see a lot of people claiming that EA has better research than the norm, others claiming worse than the norm, so I’m curious which opinion actually seems more popular among scholars (vs. the neutral “yeah, this is fine, that’s why the journal accepted it” reaction I’d expect to be more common than either of the other reactions).
Ah, that makes sense. I was thinking more about the detailed points reviewers might make about specifics from particular EA research, rather than getting data on the general quality of EA research to inform how seriously to take other such research (which also seems very/more valuable).
Data on “general quality” was my goal here, yes, albeit split up by source (since “EA research” includes everything from published journal articles to informal blog posts).
Specifics are valuable too, but in my work, I often have to decide which recent research to share, and how widely; I don’t expect experts to weigh in very quickly, but a general sense of quality from different sources may help me make better judgments around what to share.