On "confirmatory" methodological research in statistics and related fields

Empirical substantive research, such as in the life or social sciences, is commonly categorized into the two modes exploratory and confirmatory, both of which are essential to scientific progress. The former is also referred to as hypothesis-generating or data-contingent research, while the latter is also called hypothesis-testing research. In the context of empirical methodological research in statistics, however, the exploratory-confirmatory distinction has received very little attention so far. Our paper aims to fill this gap. First, we revisit the concept of empirical methodological research through the lens of the exploratory-confirmatory distinction. Secondly, we examine current practice with respect to this distinction through a literature survey including 115 articles from the field of biostatistics. Thirdly, we provide practical recommendations towards more appropriate design, interpretation, and reporting of empirical methodological research in light of this distinction. In particular, we argue that both modes of research are crucial to methodological progress, but that most published studies -- even if sometimes disguised as confirmatory -- are essentially exploratory in nature. We emphasize that it may be adequate to consider empirical methodological research as a continuum between "pure" exploration and "strict" confirmation, recommend transparently reporting the mode of conducted research within the spectrum between exploratory and confirmatory, and stress the importance of study protocols written before conducting the study, especially in confirmatory methodological research.