Someone writes:
There’s a blog post where you said we should express findings in paper titles by referring to what was measured rather than the general construct that was being aimed for. I spent more than one hour last time trying to find this post but with no success. Can you help me? I need to send it to my co-authors.
I replied: Here’s the first such example that I can remember. Is this what you were thinking of?
My correspondent responded:
The one I’m thinking about was a more recent post. I think it was referring to that biceps study but was more focused on the problem of making general claims based on findings from specific populations and proxy measurements. It made a provocative suggestion about how we should be wording all our conclusions, titles and abstracts, which I liked.
I was trying to explain that to my co-author, who had a different view than me about how we should call our experimental conditions and word our paper title. I won by imposing my choice, but I’d like to send him a good discussion that can perhaps convince him and change his mind. It’s something that’s hard to explain.
I responded with links to these three posts:
The all-important distinction between truth and evidence
And that seemed to do the trick.