Postscript to the preceding

The reason for my most recent series of posts is to lay bare an important point: in order to understand what our peers are doing when they present their research in any venue (including peer review journals), we need to be able to verify what they are claiming to have done. If anything good emerges from the conversations that have been occurring since the dawn of our current replication crisis (one which is really about so much more than simply replication), it will be the emergence of a trust-but-verify culture. That culture will necessarily have to be international. In order to get at the sorts of approximations of the truth we are supposed to value, we need to be as transparent as we are able. That includes sharing data (cleaned of individually identifying info) and protocols - and not just via email requests. In order to move forward, we are going to have to be able to trust each other. There may be varying incentives across nationalities. That is just a harsh reality we'll have to deal with. It will have to be dealt with internationally and collectively. Some of us will have louder voices than others. Some of us will be more influential due to various forms of privilege. The point is to use our voice, not only as individual scholars but collectively.