Tessera
Folgen

Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco

@asandovall.bsky.social

Postdoctoral fellow at Autonomous Univeristy of Madrid @uam.es. Previously at METRICS @stanford.edu and University of Murcia @um.es. Interested in everything related to meta-research. https://sandovallentisco.github.io/

25 Posts259 Follower415 Folgt
Peter Tennant@pwgtennant.bsky.social · last wk.

"Is an ultra-processed chocolate cake materially more harmful than a home-made one?" I enjoyed contributing to this response to The Lancet series on ultra-processed foods, which outlines some key limitations in the evidence that 'ultra-processing' is specifically harmful to health.

Public health policy should be grounded in established evidence that acknowledges uncertainty: a response to The Lancet series on ultra-processed foods - BMC Medicine

Background The recent three-part Lancet series on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) argued that the displacement of traditional diets by UPFs is a major driver of poor diet quality and diet-related chronic...

link.springer.com

📊⛏️ Picanúmeros@picanumeros.bsky.social · 2w ago

Holaaaa, he escrito un texto para @sustrato.bsky.social hablando del informe PISA, su metodología y sus limitaciones. Café para muy cafeteros. Espero que lo disfrutéis y apoyen a la buena gente de Sustrato ❤️🌱

sustrato@sustrato.bsky.social · 2w ago

Nuestro estadístico de guardia @picanumeros.bsky.social analiza lo que hay detrás de la metodología del informe PISA para que entendamos un poco más qué hay de fundado en el alarmismo que suscitó la publicación de los últimos resultados. www.sustrato.io/textos/podem...

Beth Clarke@bethclarke.bsky.social · 3w ago

Come work on a PhD in Metascience with me! There’s just a little over one week left to apply!

Beth Clarke@bethclarke.bsky.social · 2mo ago

I’m hiring a PhD student to work with me on metascience in psychology at @zpid.bsky.social! The position is very open - could cover a wide range of topics/themes 🤸🏻‍♀️✨ If you have questions, please reach out! Applications are open until October 1st. leibniz-psychology.onlyfy.jobs/en/job/fyjwt...

Nature Human Behaviour@nathumbehav.nature.com · 3w ago

There is no clear target for replication rates

There is no clear target for replication rates

Nature Human Behaviour, Published online: 21 September 2026; doi:10.1038/s41562-026-02602-5Is a 50% replication rate too high, too low or just right? We need a target replication rate to answer this question. Here, I evaluate two potential target rates, the ‘optimal’ replication rate and the ‘expected’ replication rate, and I call for an educational intervention to better appreciate their limitations.

dlvr.it

Adam Kucharski@adamjkucharski.bsky.social · 3w ago

I suspect we’ll increasing see a return to “you can only submit if you know an insider” systems, like the old-school PNAS ‘contributed’ track. It’s a bit like we’re already seeing with the new ArXiv ‘endorsement’ system...

Bild
Dan Quintana@dsquintana.bsky.social · 3w ago

New preprint! 🎉 I analysed 1660 papers from 4 psychology journals and found materials sharing went from 9% of papers in 2015 to 82% in 2025, and these materials *do* get downloaded — a median of 135 times each. BUT shared code is often hard to run. doi.org/10.31234/osf... Let's walk through it 🧵

Two-panel figure. Panel a is a flow diagram tracking 1,611 empirical psychology articles from publication year (545 in 2015, 552 in 2020, 514 in 2025) to repository-link type: 785 link an OSF project, 85 link another platform, and 741 link no repository. Of those with an OSF link, download counts were retrieved for 670 and not retrieved for 115. Panel b is a line chart of the share of empirical papers linking OSF across 2015, 2020 and 2025. The overall rate, shown as a dashed black line, rises from 9% to 57% to 82%. All four journals rise steeply and end close together: Psychological Science 92%, JESP 89%, JML 83%, Cognition 76%, with Psychological Science highest throughout.Three-panel figure. Panel a: ridgeline plot of downloads per file by material type on a log scale, with the percentage never downloaded labelled for each — archive 16% of 545 files, documents 20% of 2,970, code 12% of 3,471, other 17% of 1,646, data 21% of 10,051, media 35% of 2,120, images 35% of 4,102. Most files cluster between 1 and 10 downloads, with long right tails past 100. Panel b: ridgeline plot of downloads per paper by journal, log scale, with dashed median lines; Psychological Science is highest, then JESP, JML and Cognition. Panel c: stacked bars showing, for documents, data and code separately, the share of papers by download band (0, 1–10, 11–100, more than 100) in 2015, 2020 and 2025. The share exceeding 100 downloads falls sharply over time in all three types, from roughly two-thirds in 2015 to a quarter or less in 2025, as the 1–10 band grows.Four-panel figure. Panel a: statistical languages detected among 333 papers with retrievable code — R 88%, SPSS 12%, Stata 4%, SAS 1%. Panel b: code red flags among those 333 papers — 34% hard-code an absolute path, 40% reference a missing file — above documentation among 672 OSF-linked papers — 21% have a README, 30% are documented by README, description or wiki. Panel c: among 562 Elsevier papers with no repository link, 44% (245) host at least one journal supplementary file but only 14% (77) host data, code or an archive. Panel d: composition of those 448 hosted files — documents 52%, data 21%, media 9%, other 7%, archive 6%, code 3%, images 1%. The code panels are green, the journal-supplement panels blue.Coefficient plot (download predictors) Dot-and-whisker plot of three standardised predictors of OSF download volume, each with a 95% confidence interval. Repository size (number of files) has the largest effect at about 0.76, citations about 0.38, and altmetric attention about 0.12. All three intervals sit entirely above zero, so each predicts more downloads, with repository size roughly twice the effect of citations and six times that of attention. X-axis: standardised effect, −0.2 to 1.0.
maria ruz@mruz.bsky.social · 3w ago

We are hiring a postdoc and a predoc to do research (EEG, fMRI, MVPA, RSA) on expectation and attention at the wpd.ugr.es/~humneuro/ in beautiful Granada @cimcyc.bsky.social ! People with interest + relevant experience please reach us at mruz@ugr.es #NeuroJobs #AcademicJobs #CogNeuro #GranadaSpain

Human Neuroscience Lab – University of Granada

Our lab is located at the Mind, Brain and Behavior Research Center. Here we have access to several behavioral testing rooms, a 3T Siemens Magnetic Resonance Imaging facility with compatible EEG and EyeLink Eyetracker, high-density EEG recording devices, and a Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation device with a robotic assistant and neuronavigator.​

wpd.ugr.es

Daniel Lakens@lakens.bsky.social · 4w ago

Two weeks left to sign up for the Meta-Research Symposium 2026 organized by the Paul Meehl Graduate School paulmeehlschool.github.io/2026-08-04-s... If you've attended previous years, you know this is a lovely day full of cutting edge meta-science, and a great opportunity to network.

Registration Now Open: Meta-Research Symposium 2026 | Paul Meehl Graduate School

We are delighted to announce that registration is now open for the third Paul Meehl Graduate School Meta-Research Symposium! In...

paulmeehlschool.github.io

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology@jclinepi.bsky.social · last mo.

reFLASH: A proof-of-concept meta-analytic framework to validate surrogate endpoints in the absence of randomized clinical trial data - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology www.jclinepi.com/article/S089...

reFLASH: A proof-of-concept meta-analytic framework to validate surrogate endpoints in the absence of randomized clinical trial data

Within a meta-analytic framework, validating surrogate endpoints traditionally requires individual patient data (IPD) from multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This is rarely feasible in rare...

jclinepi.com

Richard Sever@richardsever.bsky.social · last mo.

You can now update bioRxiv/medRxiv preprints with funding information after the fact. Authors often omit/don't have all funding info when submitting, but funders understandably want it there. This solves the problem without requiring you to submit a whole new paper. openrxiv.org/updating-fun...

Updating funder information on preprints - openRxiv

For the past year, bioRxiv and medRxiv authors have been able to include funder information with their preprints. This can be entered in a dedicated field during the submission process, using Research...

openrxiv.org

Alex Holcombe@alexh.bsky.social · last mo.

Great news! Some of us have been waiting a long time for major funders to not just shovel $ into the maws of the big publishers, and instead support the long tail of scholar-controlled journals that are run on a shoestring

Open Journals Collective@ojcollective.bsky.social · last mo.

We're delighted to share news in the attached press release that the Open Journals Collective has received a major award of $711,900 from the Gates Foundation to grow support infrastructure for community-governed journals! Want to know more about OJC? Visit www.openjournalscollective.org

Press Release Date: 3 September 2026 We’re delighted to announce that Open Journals Collective (OJC) has been awarded a $711,900 grant by the Gates Foundation. This grant will enable OJC to scale its operations in 2027 and 2028. Since launching on 29 January 2026, OJC has raised $2.6M in library investment for the first year of its programme. Funds raised will provide financial support to 278 diamond open access journals in the arts, humanities, social sciences, and science, engineering, technology and mathematics. The 2-year grant will accelerate OJC’s development, including building core technical features that leverage current open infrastructure. These comprise usage dashboards for libraries and authors, financial reporting tools, and a community engagement hub for journals and publishers. It will also support the legal and financial groundwork needed to share raised library funds equitably and transparently across OJC’s journals collections. Professor Caroline Edwards, OJC Executive Director, said of the award: “It’s fantastic that this grant from the Gates Foundation will strengthen OJC’s potential to offer a fairer alternative to Article Processing Charges and Transformative Agreements. Supporting OJC at this critical early stage is a strong endorsement of OJC’s community-governed approach to building open publishing infrastructure. This is the way to address inequities in the current academic publishing landscape and encourage university libraries to transition their budgets away from exploitative commercial agreements.” Open Journals Collective is a Collective Community Interest Company (CIC) based in the UK. A CIC is a special type of limited company that exists to benefit the community rather than private shareholders. OJC is currently in the process of setting up a UK-based Charity, the Open Journals Collective Foundation, which will oversee the running of the CIC from 2027 onwards.
Joachim Baumann@joachimbaumann.bsky.social · last mo.

After Science News, our recent ICML paper also got featured in @science.org! Article: www.science.org/content/arti... Paper: arxiv.org/pdf/2605.03202 @dirkhovy.bsky.social @sanmikoyejo.bsky.social #science #PeerReview #research

Screenshot of an article in Science Magazine on the opportunities and risks of AI used for peer review featuring an ICML conference paper by Joachim Baumann et al., 2026.
Jeffrey Brainard@jeffreybrainard.bsky.social · last mo.

As research papers proliferate, can AI reviewers help humans check quality while keeping pace with the flood? Tests are revealing their strengths and weaknesses. #PeerReviewWeek @science.org www.science.org/content/article/can-ai-help-solve-peer-review-crisis-here-are-its-promises-and-pitfalls

simine vazire@simine.com · last mo.

Psych Science has retracted Ariely & Wertenbroch (2002). The second author requested the retraction. Both authors agreed to it. journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.... So grateful to @datacolada.bsky.social for these blog posts and the work behind them: datacolada.org/138 and datacolada.org/139 1/2

Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

journals.sagepub.com

Eric Schares@eschares.bsky.social · last mo.

🚨Update: Our analysis of global APC expenditure has now been expanded to cover more publishers (7 -> 14) and more years (2019-2025). We estimate $15B in APCs paid over seven years, $3.7B in 2025 alone. Elsevier crosses the $1B threshold by itself in 2025. arxiv.org/abs/2608.16322 #ScholComm

Line chart showing 5 biggest publishers from 2019-2025
Eric Schares@eschares.bsky.social · 2y ago

🚨 Preprint! We combine our recent open dataset of #APC prices with the article counts per journal-year from #OpenAlex to estimate how much the academic community has paid in APCs over the last 5 years. A. $8.349 billion ($8.968 B in 2023 USD) $2.5B in 2023 alone. arxiv.org/abs/2407.16551 #metasci

Aki Vehtari@avehtari.bsky.social · 2mo ago

All four books I've co-authored are freely available online for non-commercial use: - Bayesian Workflow at avehtari.github.io/Bayesian-Wor... Links to other three books are in the quoted post 👇 (too many books to fit in one post!)

Bayesian Workflow book: Website – Bayesian Workflow book

Website for the Bayesian Workflow book by Gelman, Vehtari, McElreath, et al. — case studies, code, and exercises in R and Stan.

avehtari.github.io

Aki Vehtari@avehtari.bsky.social · 2y ago

All three books I've co-authored are freely available online for non-commercial use: - #Bayesian Data Analysis, 3rd ed (aka BDA3) at stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/book/ - #Regression and Other Stories at avehtari.github.io/ROS-Examples/ - Active Statistics at avehtari.github.io/ActiveStatis...

The cover of Bayesian Data Analysis book
Jamie Cummins@jamiecummins.bsky.social · 2mo ago

A brave and tough call to make. It's hard to overstate how influential OSF has been on science in the past ~15 years. It's been such a staple that you'd almost forget how much cost, time, and effort it must be to keep going. Kudos to the OSF team for everything they've done.

Brian Nosek@briannosek.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Over the next several months, we will phase out some popular OSF features. These changes do not affect current public content, which remains safe and accessible. We have prepared support material to help users adapt. I am very sorry for the disruption to your work. Please read this post for details.

ReproducibiliTea@reproducibilitea.org · 2mo ago

📢 Quick Reminder: Register for ReproducibiliTea 2026! The ReproducibiliTea Conference 2026 is approaching fast! Don't miss out on connecting with the global community to dive into this year's theme: "Spilling the ReproducibiliTea: A decade on & decades ahead."

BildBild
Matheus Gallas-Lopes@matheusglls.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Our preprint on the replicability of Brazilian biomedical science is now available as a Reviewed Preprint in eLife. This version includes updated analyses, together with the eLife assessment. elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/111001v1

Estimating the replicability of Brazilian biomedical science

elifesciences.org

Matheus Gallas-Lopes@matheusglls.bsky.social · 2y ago

How replicable is Brazilian research? The Brazilian Reproducibility Initiative explores this key question, assessing how well biomedical studies can be reproduced using standard lab methods. Check our preprint 👇 doi.org/10.1101/2025...