[MetaROR] Points for discussion (reviewer-conflict decisions)

[LukasWallrich]

Items where reviewer opinions conflict or where the right approach needs authorial judgement. Decide the direction here first; the concrete edit then moves to the relevant chapter / structural issue.

• Table 2.1 — interpretations vs worked examples. R1 disagrees with the "possible interpretations" (e.g. direct replication as a generalizability test) and suggests replacing them with worked examples showing what findings would look like; R2 commends the sequentiality concept but questions introducing "generalizable". Decide what the table should convey, then edit Chapter 2. (R1, R2)
• Depth vs breadth trade-off. R3 wants more hands-on guidance and practical detail; R1 wants the MRI section pared back. How deep should the handbook go on any single topic? (links the MRI item in Content gaps)
• Chapter 7 restructuring. R1 suggests breaking Table 7.1 into subsections (7.1–7.5) by data/analysis type; R3 suggests merging Chapter 7 into Chapter 6. These are different directions — decide which serves readers, then coordinate with "Split Table 7.1" in Structural reorganisation & scope. (R1, R3)
• Preregistration section in Chapter 5. R1 says remove the confused paragraph about fraudulent preregistration; R2 appreciates the mention of preregistration as open science "in action". Decide how much space preregistration deserves and what angle to take. (R1, R2)
• Adversarial collaborations (Section 6.5). R1 says expand and relate to replication studies, or remove entirely. Decide whether the topic is worth covering. (R1)
• Multiverse analysis. Only mentioned in Table 4.1 but not discussed in the text. Decide whether to add a substantive discussion or remove it from the table. (R3)
• Counter-factual divergent-result explanations. Figure 4.2 and Section 7.2 both discuss explanations for failed replications, but very differently. Decide on a unified treatment. (R3)

Related existing issues:

• Extend discussion on disagreement about replication success #4 Extend discussion on disagreement about replication success