Many scientists engage in some form of non-traditional expert peer review of scientific claims. I think this essential for science and, in fact, I have always been perplexed to learn such behaviour is not considered science as normal. Instead, some senior-researchers-turned-angry-mastodons in psychological science (e.g. prof. Fiske) consider these contributions to the scientific record to be methodological terrorism (intimidation), by self-appointed data police.
Mastodon Science = Aurhotity Science ≠ Science
The science in which the Mastodons thrived was a science in which arguments of authority outweighed criticism based on logical, methodological, stastistical or meta-scientific arguments. No wonder they feel offended and threatened by a new generation of scientists devoted to tranpsarency ans openness.
Dealing with (self-)criticism is a scientific virtue, not a scientific sin.
Post publication peer review, 3PR, is an academic skill and is necessary for theory evaluation, meta-science and the general advancement of any scientific discipline. It involves much more than checking methods and statistics. Here’s an example of what may be learned when 3PR is applied to evaluate the empirical evidence for the core hypotheses of a theory:
More to follow…