A formal response to Brad McKay’s and Michael Carter’s “Data irregularities across six implicit learning articles: Comments on Lola and Tzetzis (2021), Lola, Giatis, Pérez-Turpin, and Tzetzis (In Press), Lola and Tzetzis (2020), Tzetzis and Lola (2015), L

This paper is a formal response to McKay’s and Carter’s publication titled “Data irregularities across six implicit learning articles: Comments on Lola and Tzetzis (2021), Lola, Giatis, Pérez-Turpin, and Tzetzis (In Press), Lola and Tzetzis (2020), Tzetzis and Lola (2015), Lola, Tzetzis, and Zetou (2012), and Tzetzis and Lola (2010)” in the blog psyarxiv.com. This paper directly addresses and refutes all of McKay’s and Carter’s comments regarding the validity of our results and conclusions on the aforementioned publications. Unfortunately, McKay’s and Carter’s comments are based on misconceptions of our statistical methodology (e.g. measuring methods, family-wise error corrections, etc.) as well as in the methods they utilize: the applicability of GRIMMER analysis, the difference of effect size, and statistical significance are in their vast majority invalid. Our research team is in the process of updating the manuscripts in the journals in order to correct the few errors that McKay and Carter identified, which in no case affected any of our studies’ results or conclusions. Through this paper, we provide all required clarifications and better explain our methodological choices. We strongly believe that any critique that provides food for thought is welcome, but a critique that only deals with the numbers of a survey, without commenting on the qualitative characteristics, is not useful to the academic community, highlighting the need for adequate meta-analytic training in the field of motor learning in order to promote constructive dialogue.