This piece makes a great point about how we can try to make commentaries more useful for science - turning them from 'pointless quibbles' into pieces where both parties actually commit to working out their disagreements. https://twitter.com/hugh_rab/status/1321149938999308288

Too often, scientific debates are like these two mascots. Two parties do their little dance to show off, and walk away, leaving no one wiser about how a disagreement should be resolved.

At an @improvingpsych meeting with @PsychRabble and @NeilLewisJr a group of people discussed a special article format: A core dialogue - two sides discuss the core of their disagreement, and propose how we could move towards a resolution in the future. Still love the idea!