<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#000000"><h2 style="font-size:24px;margin:0px;line-height:1.3;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Georgia,"Times New Roman",times,serif;letter-spacing:0.2px"><a href="https://nature.us17.list-manage.com/track/click?u=2c6057c528fdc6f73fa196d9d&id=e8599ccb09&e=d520e39c16" target="_blank" style="text-decoration-line:none">Method reviews could stop useless science</a></h2><p style="margin:16px 0px 10px;line-height:1.5;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Georgia,"Times New Roman",times,serif;font-size:18px;letter-spacing:0.2px">“I’ve lost count of the number of times that a board member has remarked that the way a study has been designed means it won’t yield any informative data,” says experimental psychologist and ethical-review-board chair Daniël Lakens. To counter this trend, his university has introduced <a href="https://nature.us17.list-manage.com/track/click?u=2c6057c528fdc6f73fa196d9d&id=8eef8226b7&e=d520e39c16" target="_blank" style="text-decoration-line:none">a methodological review board that highlights flaws before data collection even begins</a> — such as sample sizes that are too small to test a hypothesis.</p><span class="m_-5689524504286526250content-reference" style="margin:5px 0px 0px;line-height:1.3;color:rgb(74,74,74);font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;font-size:14px;display:block;letter-spacing:0.2px;clear:both"><a href="https://nature.us17.list-manage.com/track/click?u=2c6057c528fdc6f73fa196d9d&id=916b4ba46e&e=d520e39c16" target="_blank" style="text-decoration-line:none">Nature | 5 min read</a></span></div></div>