Ideas for v0.2

[LukasWallrich]

Make it more accessible

• some sort of TL;DR
  • Have a quick start guide (< 10 pages) with key information. Then people could read that front to back and dive into details as needed.
  • Or have chapter summaries/key take-aways at the top, which could serve a similar purpose.
  • And/or have a one-page roadmap with key questions and success criteria for each phase – and references to specific sections – that might be the easiest-to-create start.
• Have some more summary tables – e.g. for sample size justification approaches. That one could also be question driven: “If your goal is to test the original study’s evidentiary value -> Use the Small Telescopes Approach. If your goal is to test for the absence of a meaningful effect -> Use Equivalence Testing.”
• Switch to a more readable referencing style (footnotes?), and call out (few) key suggested readings. Do not cite the same source multiple times in the same paragraph/section.
• Simplify Figure 3 / make it dynamic (but maybe only for Quarto) – it is really overwhelming [not sure which Figure this is referring to - LW: I don't know either, but the Hüffmeier figure is one example]
• Either we need a glossary appendix, or at least a very clear link (but even FORRT’s is very incomplete at present). I stumbled in places, e.g. “statistical conclusion validity”, and ECRs will stumble often. This is probably something where AI could help, and where we could have a cool functionality in the book (e.g. using the PsyTeachR glossary package to link all the terms). @max-fw has worked out how to use that in Quarto books, maybe she can help set it up

Add key content

• An indicative timeline for replications/reproductions
• A few worked examples through the sections – ideally 2-3 replications that we dissect along the sections
• A couple of personal experiences with replications – brief interview template re experience and lessons learned (this would also help answer how replications fit into academic journeys – if we don’t do this, we might just need a separate section on this).
• Advice on ‘selling’ replications to sceptical reviewers and editors. I think we still aim for replications to also appear in normal journals, but are currently quite fatalistic on that.

Language edits

• Consistent voice: I introduced some “you”s and think that is better than complex passive constructions – but obviously that would need to be more consistently changed or reverted
• Review jargon: at times, we might be able to use more basic language - maybe this can happen while adding the glossary, where an alternative to adding an entry should always be removing a word

Revise chapter structure

Could be more action-oriented, and thus focus on questions.

• Should I do a replication? (decision framework)
• How do I choose a target? (streamlined selection criteria)
• What type should I do? (reproduction vs. replication choice)
• How do I plan it? (practical steps)
• How do I execute it? (implementation guide)
• How do I interpret results? (success criteria)
• How do I publish it? (communication strategy)