Leif Nelson

Am I rejecting too many things, etc.? There was some conversation about whether I was desk rejecting the wrong people. So if I was stepping on important people's toes and an email was forwarded to me from a quote unquote award winning social psychologist, you know, Samin desk rejected my paper. I found this extremely distasteful and I won't be submitting there again.

And when I would try to engage about the substance of my decisions, you know, the scientific basis for them, that wasn't what the conversation was about.

And when I would try to engage about the substance of my decisions, you know, the scientific basis for them, that wasn't what the conversation was about.

And when I would try to engage about the substance of my decisions, you know, the scientific basis for them, that wasn't what the conversation was about.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

It was a tense few months, but in the end, I was allowed to continue doing what I was doing.

It was a tense few months, but in the end, I was allowed to continue doing what I was doing.

It was a tense few months, but in the end, I was allowed to continue doing what I was doing.

We're expanding a team that used to have a different name. We're going to call them the Statistics, Transparency and Rigor editors, the star editors. And so that team will be supplementing the handling editors, the editors who actually organize the peer review and make the decisions on submissions.

We're expanding a team that used to have a different name. We're going to call them the Statistics, Transparency and Rigor editors, the star editors. And so that team will be supplementing the handling editors, the editors who actually organize the peer review and make the decisions on submissions.

We're expanding a team that used to have a different name. We're going to call them the Statistics, Transparency and Rigor editors, the star editors. And so that team will be supplementing the handling editors, the editors who actually organize the peer review and make the decisions on submissions.

Like if a handling editor has a question about the data integrity or about details of the methods or things like that, the star editor team will provide their expertise and help fill in those gaps. We're also, I'm not sure exactly what form this will take, but try to incentivize more accurate and calibrated claims and less hype and exaggeration.

Like if a handling editor has a question about the data integrity or about details of the methods or things like that, the star editor team will provide their expertise and help fill in those gaps. We're also, I'm not sure exactly what form this will take, but try to incentivize more accurate and calibrated claims and less hype and exaggeration.

Like if a handling editor has a question about the data integrity or about details of the methods or things like that, the star editor team will provide their expertise and help fill in those gaps. We're also, I'm not sure exactly what form this will take, but try to incentivize more accurate and calibrated claims and less hype and exaggeration.

This is something that I think is particularly challenging with short articles like psychological science publishes and especially, you know, a journal that has really high rejection rate where the vast majority of submissions are rejected. authors are competing for those few spots. And so it feels like they have to make a really bold claim.

This is something that I think is particularly challenging with short articles like psychological science publishes and especially, you know, a journal that has really high rejection rate where the vast majority of submissions are rejected. authors are competing for those few spots. And so it feels like they have to make a really bold claim.

This is something that I think is particularly challenging with short articles like psychological science publishes and especially, you know, a journal that has really high rejection rate where the vast majority of submissions are rejected. authors are competing for those few spots. And so it feels like they have to make a really bold claim.

And so it's going to be very difficult to play this like back and forth where authors are responding to the perception of what the incentives are. So we need to convey to them that actually, if you go too far, make too bold of claims that aren't warranted, you will be more likely to get rejected.