bet365 sportsbook review methods in social sciences、bet365 sportsbook review process and bet365 sportsbook review results，It is a classic topic often discussed by scholars from various countries，Seems like it will never go out of style。Social science bet365 sportsbook review in every era faces complex and profound challenges，In response to challenges、In the process of solving the problem，Social sciences accompanying social practice have also achieved development and progress。

Recently，Philipp Schoenegger, a researcher at the Behavioral Laboratory of the London School of Economics and Political Science in the UK, and Raimund Pils, a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Philosophy, University of Salzburg, Austria, discussed the challenges facing social sciences around the world today challenge，Innovatively made a suggestion，Delete the “discussion” section in social science papers。bet365 sportsbook review "revolutionary" formulation，It is tantamount to pouring cold water on the classic "eight-legged essay" writing method in the field of social sciences，Causing controversy and discussion within a certain range。Our reporter focuses on the challenges faced by social sciences、Coping strategies and the role of the “Discussion” section of social science papers，Interviewed with Pierce。

　　Publication bias contributes to social science bet365 sportsbook review crisis

In Pierce’s opinion，Social science bet365 sportsbook review currently faces three major crises，respectively the replication crisis、The theory crisis and the applicability crisis。These crises are interconnected，Threats to the validity of social science bet365 sportsbook review、Reliability and practicality。

The first is a repeat crisis，That is, it is difficult to reproduce previous bet365 sportsbook review results，This issue has attracted the attention of many experts。It can be seen from the results of bet365 sportsbook review such as the "Many Labs Replication Project"，Only half or even less than half of bet365 sportsbook review results can be replicated，This calls into question the reliability of the bet365 sportsbook review results。The second is the theoretical crisis，It shows that social science lacks comprehensiveness、Cumulative theoretical framework。Fundamentally，Social science theories are often generalized and applied universally，This weakens its practicality and reliability。Finally, there is a crisis of applicability，That is, scientific discoveries can only be repeated on a small scale，Cannot be applied on a larger scale，This makes people doubt the practicality or operability of the scientific suggestions made by scholars。These crises have had a huge impact，They undermine public trust in social science，Limits scholars’ ability to make various suggestions，May lead to waste of bet365 sportsbook review resources。

Schonegg and Peirce mentioned in their bet365 sportsbook review result "Social sciences in crisis: on the proposed elimination of the discussion section"，The reason why the above problem occurs，One of the reasons is publication bias，That is, statistically significant bet365 sportsbook review results are more likely to be published。Another reason is the prevalence of “suspicious unethical bet365 sportsbook review practices”，Includes selective analysis of certain variables、Additional data collection after analysis is completed、Relax experimental conditions, etc.。

Pierce said，In response to the crisis，The academic community has initiated several reform measures，Including developing “open science” to address fundamental issues，Committed to improving the transparency and reliability of bet365 sportsbook review practices。One of the most prominent solutions is “preregistration”，Researchers need to publicly outline their study design before conducting the study、bet365 sportsbook review Hypotheses and Analysis Plan。This approach helps reduce inappropriate bet365 sportsbook review practices。What needs to be noted is，These improper bet365 sportsbook review practices are often not intentional by researchers，Sometimes they may not even realize that the relevant operations are not in compliance with the specification。"Pre-registration" requires researchers to commit to a predetermined plan，Instead of tampering with data or selectively reporting results，Thereby improving the replicability and integrity of bet365 sportsbook review。

Another option is "Registration Report"。In this scenario，People will focus on bet365 sportsbook review topics and bet365 sportsbook review methods，Instead of bet365 sportsbook review results。bet365 sportsbook review hypotheses and bet365 sportsbook review design will be peer reviewed，If the evaluation result is reasonable，Then whatever the bet365 sportsbook review results are，will be accepted and published。This approach shifts the focus from “exciting” bet365 sportsbook review results to rigor、Well-designed bet365 sportsbook review itself，Promote more robust scientific exploration。And this approach ensures that statistically "failed" results can still be published，Thus reducing publication bias。

In addition，There is also a strong push to optimize statistics education and methodology。Related reforms aim to deepen researchers’ understanding of statistical principles and bet365 sportsbook review methods，Thus improving the overall quality of bet365 sportsbook review。Relevant measures have achieved some results。For example，Pre-registration and registration reports are increasingly popular among various journals，Researchers’ awareness of the importance of bet365 sportsbook review methods and statistical literacy continues to increase。These are gradually improving the quality of social science bet365 sportsbook review，Changing the bet365 sportsbook review culture。

　Cancel the "Discussion" section to improve credibility

Pierce told reporters，Over the past few years，The above attempts have made great progress，But this is not enough。For example，In the field of marketing bet365 sportsbook review，Judging from papers published in journals such as the Journal of Consumer bet365 sportsbook review，Only about 11% of bet365 sportsbook review results can be replicated。Therefore，He and Schoenegg came up with a new method，That is, cancel the "Discussion" part of the paper，Take it out as a separate paper。Currently，Authors of social science papers mostly explain the bet365 sportsbook review results in the discussion section，This section is a breeding ground for "cognitive biases" and "incentive misalignment"。In this section，The author may focus more on findings that support his or her views、Data and interpretation，Ignore content that contradicts its views。If the author fails to accurately state the true results and limitations of his study，Then its bet365 sportsbook review results will inevitably be questioned。Therefore，Removing the “Discussion” section can make the paper more accurate、Trusted。

Schonegg and Pierce believe，Another key point is to make the bet365 sportsbook review process more professional。Normally，A bet365 sportsbook review team needs to complete all bet365 sportsbook review-related matters in every detail，Include study design、Collect data、Analyze data, etc.，Then strive to integrate bet365 sportsbook review with past and future theory and practice，This “one-stop” approach will reduce bet365 sportsbook review efficiency and affect bet365 sportsbook review results。Therefore，They proposed to split the above tasks，Enabling researchers to develop their strengths，Some researchers can only be responsible for the empirical part，such as collecting and analyzing data，Focus on bet365 sportsbook review and data itself；Other researchers can independently interpret the bet365 sportsbook review results，And combine it with the actual situation，Focus on comprehensive critical and insightful analysis of bet365 sportsbook review。Such a division of labor can improve bet365 sportsbook review efficiency and bet365 sportsbook review quality。

Pierce pointed out in an interview，Since the 1960s，Sociologists and economists have noted that bet365 sportsbook review collaboration often stems from science itself，This finding was further clarified in subsequent social science bet365 sportsbook review，That is, scientists’ social behavior driven by self-interest shapes scientific norms。Scholars are often motivated by more than just seeking the truth，Also includes promoting professional development、Obtained academic recognition、Obtain R&D funds, etc.，These motivations sometimes conflict with the core goals of scientific bet365 sportsbook review，It may also affect the bet365 sportsbook review results。Therefore，If the scholar's personal goals are aligned with the broader epistemological goals of scientific bet365 sportsbook review，It can promote the scientific process。Peer review is a good example。Under the peer review system，The paper needs to be strictly reviewed by experts not involved in the bet365 sportsbook review before publication。But some people may have doubts: doing so will make it more difficult for scholars to publish papers，Influence on his career，Why scholars must undergo such scrutiny？The answer is: publishing in high-standard peer-reviewed journals is an achievement for scholars，Can improve its reputation in the academic community。This links academic incentives with the goals of scientific bet365 sportsbook review，The two directions are the same。

Pierce said，Let other scholars comment、Challenge the biases and blind spots of the original bet365 sportsbook review，is a "confrontation mode"，This “confrontation mode” should be strengthened。Therefore，In Schoneger and his proposed structure，Two independent teams interpreted the results and collected the data。This creates a healthy tension，The team responsible for interpretation did not participate in the original study，Generally not biased towards data，Can critically analyze bet365 sportsbook review results，Even questioned the bet365 sportsbook review results。This approach helps restore public trust in social science。In this day and age of misinformation，Accurate、Transparent bet365 sportsbook review reporting is crucial。This model can also create new impetus for academic publishing。In this mode，Researchers receive incentives not only for providing new data，And will earn achievements for critically analyzing existing data，Thus creating a culture that values ​​comprehensive review of bet365 sportsbook review findings and critical thinking，This will have a profound impact on the overall quality and reliability of social science bet365 sportsbook review。

　　Abolition of "eight-legged essay" in social science sparks discussion

Once Schonegg and Pierce’s proposal was made，Immediately triggered many discussions in the academic community。Stanford University psychology professor Russell Poldrack agrees with this proposal，And expressed that he would like to read the researchers’ assumptions about the results in the introduction，This can show its bet365 sportsbook review motivation，But not interested in the speculation in the Discussion section。He thinks，If the bet365 sportsbook review results bring new ideas，Then researchers should conduct more work to verify，Then produce a related paper。

Dorothy Bishop, emeritus professor of developmental neuropsychology at the University of Oxford, disagrees。She thinks，The Discussion section should serve two purposes，First, concisely communicate the relationship between results and hypotheses，The second is to provide an opportunity to think about new ideas inspired by the results。She also saw the issues raised by Schoenegg and Pierce，That is, the "Discussion" section of the paper is often prone to over exaggerating the bet365 sportsbook review results，Causes people to waste time researching very attractive but wrong clues。But in her opinion，Because someone abused the Discussion section，I think this part should be deleted，I may give up eating due to choking，What’s more, there are other ways to solve related problems。

Bishop said，Schonegg and Pierce’s views made her uncomfortable，Because they seem to be opposed to researchers using papers to illustrate new ideas generated during the bet365 sportsbook review process。She thinks，Researchers should be fully encouraged to elaborate on creative insights gained from their bet365 sportsbook review，Because the development of science is gradual，Some insights may be valuable to others working on this topic，Perhaps they would be interested in doing more bet365 sportsbook review on this。If researchers can only propose ideas that have been verified through mature experiments，That might slow down science，Reduce the likelihood of new scientific discoveries。In addition，This also makes academic bet365 sportsbook review an isolated activity，Because everyone will only stumble forward on their own road，No longer focus on communication。

Schonegg and Pierce also admitted，The main cost of removing the Discussion section is the potential loss of the epistemic advantage of authors discussing their own data，These are things that third-party researchers cannot immediately detect，This is especially true when complex data sets are involved。Outsourcing the Discussion portion to a third party risks missing out on important nuances and insights that only the original author can provide。They know their suggestion is quite bold，But at the same time, I also think，The academic community needs to discuss bold ideas to improve the current status of social science bet365 sportsbook review。And their proposals are not independent solutions，Need to work in conjunction with other ongoing reforms, especially those under the Open Science movement。Removal of the “Discussion” section requires a change in bet365 sportsbook review specifications，They hope this suggestion will spark a wider discussion，And carry out meaningful reforms in the way social science bet365 sportsbook review is conducted and disseminated。