A Two-Sided Discussion of Preregistration of NLP Research

2Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

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

APA

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.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free