BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//pretalx//pretalx.com//sips2025-budapest//talk//BGXCY7
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:CET
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20001029T040000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=10
TZNAME:CET
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:20000326T030000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=3
TZNAME:CEST
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:pretalx-sips2025-budapest-BGXCY7@pretalx.com
DTSTART;TZID=CET:20250626T133000
DTEND;TZID=CET:20250626T150000
DESCRIPTION:It is increasingly common for editors to ask for high-powered\,
  direct replications of studies when papers are invited for revision. Howe
 ver\, norms regarding what to do when these replications fail do not exist
 \, either for authors attempting to reframe their findings\, or reviewers/
 editors reevaluating the work. A lack of clear expectations and norms risk
 s not only confusion and consternation\, but possibly reinforcing perverse
  publication incentives where only “statistically significant” results
  are valued rather than strong and valid tests of theoretical questions. T
 his Unconference will begin with the organizer and participants discussing
  their experiences with failed replications during peer review. The group 
 will then discuss the “ideal” way these are handled\, from the perspec
 tive of both authors and reviewers/editors. Given interest\, the group wil
 l then potentially organize to produce a short methodological manuscript t
 hat addresses these questions and provides guidance for editors and author
 s confronting these issues.
DTSTAMP:20260516T134908Z
LOCATION:Second floor 213
SUMMARY:UC9: Failed Replications During Peer-Review: What Should Happen The
 n? - Jeffrey Lees
URL:https://pretalx.com/sips2025-budapest/talk/BGXCY7/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR