Abstract
Van Miltenburg et al. (2021) suggest NLP research should adopt preregistration to prevent fishing expeditions and to promote publication of negative results. At face value, this is a very reasonable suggestion, seemingly solving many methodological problems with NLP research. We discuss pros and cons-some old, some new: a) Preregistration is challenged by the practice of retrieving hypotheses after the results are known; b) preregistration may bias NLP toward confirmatory research; c) preregistration must allow for reclassification of research as exploratory; d) preregistration may increase publication bias; e) preregistration may increase flag-planting; f) preregistration may increase p-hacking; and finally, g) preregistration may make us less risk tolerant. We cast our discussion as a dialogue, presenting both sides of the debate.
Cite
CITATION STYLE
Søgaard, A., Hershcovich, D., & de Lhoneux, M. (2023). A Two-Sided Discussion of Preregistration of NLP Research. In EACL 2023 - 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference (pp. 83–93). Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.6
Register to see more suggestions
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.