English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In this paper, I revisit my earlier proposal for Results Blind Publishing (RBP) and have added some new perspectives and qualifications regarding it. RBP is a suggestion that research journals decide on publication of submitted manuscripts based on reviewing only their Introduction section (which suggests the substantive importance of the research question addressed by the study) and Methods section (which suggests how likely the study validly answers that question), as a means of avoiding publication bias based on what the results are claimed to be, a bias that exacerbates replicability problems. I differentiate the separate questions of: (1) what should be the criteria for a positive as opposed to null research finding versus (2) what should be the criteria for publication of manuscripts. I believe the conflation of these two different questions fuels some of the controversies and confusion concerning null hypothesis significance testing and similar issues. I also compare the pros and cons of RBP versus the practice of preregistering studies. Further, I cite a potentially serious problem with RBP and suggest a fix-up involving a decision theoretic approach to manuscript publication.

Results Blind Science Publishing and a Decision-Theoretic Approach to Publishing