I’m the Founder and Co-director of The Unjournal; We organize and fund public journal-independent feedback, rating, and evaluation of hosted papers and dynamically-presented research projects. We will focus on work that is highly relevant to global priorities (especially in economics, social science, and impact evaluation). We will encourage better research by making it easier for researchers to get feedback and credible ratings on their work.
Previously I was a Senior Economist at Rethink Priorities, and before that n Economics lecturer/professor for 15 years.
I’m working to impact EA fundraising and marketing; see https://bit.ly/eamtt
And projects bridging EA, academia, and open science.. see bit.ly/eaprojects
My previous and ongoing research focuses on determinants and motivators of charitable giving (propensity, amounts, and ‘to which cause?’), and drivers of/barriers to effective giving, as well as the impact of pro-social behavior and social preferences on market contexts.
Podcasts: “Found in the Struce” https://anchor.fm/david-reinstein
and the EA Forum podcast: https://anchor.fm/ea-forum-podcast (co-founder, regular reader)
Twitter: @givingtools
I think “an unsolved problem” could indicate several things. it could be
We have evidence that all of the commonly tried approaches are ineffective, i.e., we have measured all of their effects and they are tightly bounded as being very small
We have a lack of evidence, thus very wide credible intervals over the impact of each of the common approaches.
To me, the distinction is important. Do you agree?
You say above
But even “do not have substantial evidence in support” could mean either of the above … a lack of evidence, or strong evidence that the effects are close to zero. At least to my ears.
As for ‘hedge this’, I was referring to the paper not to the response, but I can check this again.