II.2. Evidence from researcher interactions with human participants

Forum rules

To download the working group's draft report, select the "DRAFT REPORT" announcement. Please provide comments or other feedback on the draft via the first topic-thread "Comments on Draft Report ..." You may also continue to view and add to the earlier threads. Please log in first to have your post be attributable to you. Anonymous posts will display only after a delay to allow for administrator review. Contributors agree to the QTD Terms of Use.

Tim Buthe
Duke University
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:39 pm

Comments on Draft Report of Working Group II.2

PostTue Aug 29, 2017 9:59 am

Please use this thread to share feedback on the draft report

Post Reply

Erik Bleich
Middlebury College
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 3:03 pm

Re: Comments on Draft Report of Working Group II.2

PostSat Sep 30, 2017 8:20 am

Thank you, Leo, Mark, and Anastasia, for a thorough and thoughtful report. I especially appreciate your identifying both the pros and cons of greater transparency, and being specific about each. I support the conclusion of this report: that generic requirements for data access and replicability should be avoided, especially when imposed by journals in a submission process. While I recognize that the purpose of this report was to engage the scholarly community in this important discussion (which you've done admirably), I wonder if you might clarify and amplify few bullet-point take-aways for journal editors. I have heard some feedback that people would appreciate a clear signal to editors that may have already adopted the JETS. One potential risk from this report is that editors skim it and conclude, OK, for qualitative work, I presumptively need to see all the bullet points on p. 15, and especially each of the 5 (relatively time- and space-consuming) practices outlined on pp. 16-19. So if I might make one suggestion, it would be to have the "suggestions for journal editors" paragraph on p. 14 be a bit clearer in emphasizing that no one researcher can reasonable do everything; that any one or more of those things may suffice; and that if editors or reviewers have questions about qualitative transparency, they should communicate directly with authors to discuss transparency choices prior to making a final decision about a manuscript. I'm not sure I've got that language quite right, but something in that direction (maybe highlighted, in bold, with neon lights, etc.), could open up an opportunity for a valuable discussion. What do you think?

Post Reply

Return to “II.2. Evidence from researcher interactions with human participants”