R3: everything

[jvcasillas]

• Since QRPs appear to be a critical component of the commentary here, I would spend at least a paragraph in the introduction explaining them / the original few papers on them and how this interwove with the time period of the 2015 collaboration to lead to TOP guidelines.

• [ ] This was also mentioned by R2 in https://github.com/RAP-group/guide_to_open_science/issues/21
• [ ] Use response from https://github.com/RAP-group/guide_to_open_science/issues/21 to guide this answer
• [ ] consider additional paragraph mentioned above

• I love this figure. Given the pervasiveness of TOP guidelines, maybe make the connection between them direct. I think you could comment on how those guidelines are heavily quant focused and ignore the intersection of the researcher and the research (and how positionality statements acknowledge these things).

• [ ] mentioning how it is quant focused is a good idea (possibly calm down R2). this is an opportunity to mention that everything we are talking about is not one-size-fits-all

• When you talk about repositories, mention that there are lists of “trusted repositories” that are better than researcher websites, are more accessible, etc.

• [ ] add this info in relevant place (this also touches on points made by R2 regarding tables for repositories.)

• Organization: I would make the big headers each of your sections from the figure and then subheader the points in each.

• [ ] consider this option

• Maybe provide a link to tutorials that show people how to do literate programming? I think there are a few good markdown / rmarkdown / quarto ones that may be beneficial for further reading. You could also mention code ocean as options for researchers who don’t want to recreate entire environments but want to test the code.
• Oh here’s code ocean ha. Maybe a touch earlier.

• [ ] Consider moving this earlier

• I think the section on pre-reg should start with a quite note that they are not only for experimental studies, you can pre-reg ideas, etc. I think there’s been a lot of push back against them because it doesn’t feel like it fits in qual research or more exploratory studies.

• [ ] Excellent points and addresses many of R2's qualms. Incorporate this idea at beginning of prereg section

• In the pre-print section, this is a good place for TOP as well – many of the guidelines encourage them, so that’s a helpful signal.

• [ ] Incoporate TOP here