A Two-Sided Discussion of Preregistration of NLP Research
Van Miltenburg et al. (2021) suggest NLP research should adopt preregistration to prevent fishing expeditions and to promote publication of negative results. At face value, this is a very reasonable suggestion, seemingly solving many methodological problems with NLP research. We discuss pros and con...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Van Miltenburg et al. (2021) suggest NLP research should adopt
preregistration to prevent fishing expeditions and to promote publication of
negative results. At face value, this is a very reasonable suggestion,
seemingly solving many methodological problems with NLP research. We discuss
pros and cons -- some old, some new: a) Preregistration is challenged by the
practice of retrieving hypotheses after the results are known; b)
preregistration may bias NLP toward confirmatory research; c) preregistration
must allow for reclassification of research as exploratory; d) preregistration
may increase publication bias; e) preregistration may increase flag-planting;
f) preregistration may increase p-hacking; and finally, g) preregistration may
make us less risk tolerant. We cast our discussion as a dialogue, presenting
both sides of the debate. |
---|---|
DOI: | 10.48550/arxiv.2302.10086 |