I have looked through our tags, and have found the following list of tags that seem to be (at least in part) about doing research in cogsci:

- 1 question

- 1 question

Do we really need that many tags? Can we merge some of them in a smart way?

It seems obvious that , , and should all be merged together. I would also suggest that they be merged into some sort of bigger tag that covers and some of the questions tagged . I would propose we name such an overall tag as or . I think the first is a better name, but the second would be easier for new users typing in the tag-box to find.

The tag seems to be a particular sore point. One question is about running experiments, and thus would fall under a broad methodology tag. The rest of the questions just seem to be stressing that they want references to experiments, or just references... in this case I think those 4 questions can either have the tag removed (since we should be pointing out experiments anyways in our answers) or atleast changed to if it is obvious that they want reference to specific studies (as is here and here).

I wanted to run this observation past the community before making any changes. Do my suggestions seem reasonable? Also, what is a better name or ?

  • 1
    My +1 means I agree with your suggestions. Perhaps to make it more obvious you could clearly state the desired changes as an answer as well? So there is a difference between +1 we should address this, and +1 this is the solution.
    – Steven Jeuris Mod
    Feb 9, 2012 at 12:19
  • As for methodology vs. research-methodology, we can allow both and make research-methodology a tag synonym of methodology.
    – Steven Jeuris Mod
    Feb 9, 2012 at 12:21
  • I suspect "reproducible-research" is used because people found it in the suggestions for "research"
    – Ben Brocka
    Feb 9, 2012 at 21:58

3 Answers 3


I have done the re-tagging, most things have now been merged into and . I did not touch the tags or since I did not get any clear feedback on them.


I think many of your suggestions are sound. For example, I don't think we have any need to an tag. I also think that you're correct in your assertion that , , and can all fit under one tag.

I do think that has a purpose. It's for people looking for a given paper/study/reference which they know exists but forgot the name/author of. Similar to the "what's that game?" questions on Gaming.SE.

  • 2
    I agree with the reference-request point (partially since I introduced the tag), I included it in this question mostly for completeness. If there are no objections I will start merging and retagging later today, have to finish prepping a talk for now. Feb 9, 2012 at 14:48

Thanks Artem for getting this discussion started.

  • I like the tags and .
  • I created to refer to questions about reproducible research, i.e., strategies for making statistical analyses and data reproducible. That said, others have then used the tag to flag other uses, such as a request for research of any kind.
  • We can also at some point create tag synonyms, although they seem to take a bit of work in terms of having sufficient rep in both tags to create them and then getting sufficient votes to approve them. But then again, maybe I'm just not that familiar with them.
  • I think has been used both to request a specific known paper, and to note that the question specifically seeks references. I'm not sure whether this is a problem or not.
  • I changed my apa question from to . Hopefully that makes the tag less ambiguous.
  • I'm not sure about versus . Both look fine to me.

More broadly, I guess there is an issue of how prescriptive we should be with tags, or whether we should let them grow more organically. But I guess that's a separate discussion.

  • I feel we should use a different name for reproducible-research to avoid users misusing it. Feb 9, 2012 at 23:32
  • good idea; perhaps reproducible-analysis or reproducibility. I'm not really sure Feb 9, 2012 at 23:38
  • I like those names better, but it would be nice if statistics (or something equivalent) appeared in the name. Like statistical-reproducibility or something. Feb 9, 2012 at 23:42
  • The term "reproducible-research" is well understood in statistics and such fields, but presumably a lot less on this site. Feb 9, 2012 at 23:49
  • How do you stand on merging the different tags under e.g. methodology, or research-methodology as you seem to prefer?
    – Steven Jeuris Mod
    Feb 10, 2012 at 0:05
  • @StevenJeuris I have already retagged as methodology (so we can have the shorter tag as the real name), but I think research-methodology should be a tag-synonym so that when people start typing 'research' they see it. Feb 10, 2012 at 0:16
  • @ArtemKaznatcheev Thanks for the reply, but I was actually addressing Jeromy since I didn't get a clear opinion on that out of his answer.
    – Steven Jeuris Mod
    Feb 10, 2012 at 0:20
  • 1
    @StevenJeuris I don't mind either way; I think given the nature of the site methodology means research-methodology 9 times out of 10; perhaps methodology is more direct. Feb 10, 2012 at 1:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .