#AcademicSky #PsychSciSky #MetaScience Article worth reading, & sharing w/ your student researchers. Can't get this out of my head: "Bishop’s law: The better designed a study is, the more likely it is to obtain a null result" journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/... Meimoun & @lakens.bsky.social

Here’s a video showing how it looks for the user! With example survey questions at open and close

turnstile-app.com

Sabrina Norwood@sabrinanorwood.bsky.social · 3d ago

Early in this study I knew I’d want to run many more observational and intervention studies using this method. And I wanted to make it easier for myself and other researchers to do it So @ianhussey.mmmdata.io & I spent time developing an iOS app that can collect these data and deliver interventions

🚨 New preprint: In this paper we make the case for measuring social media use at the level of naturally occurring sessions (i.e., beginning when the app/site is opened and ending when it is closed). Across 7 days and 161 participants this gave us nearly 4,000 paired sessions of use 🧵

🚨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

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

An influential paper by Ariely & Wertenbroch (2002) reported two studies with tampered data. Post 1 of 2. datacolada.org/138

[138] Artificial Deadlines (Part 1): Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

A new paper in Psychological Science (.htm) reports a failure to replicate Study 2 of Ariely and Wertenbroch’s influential article entitled, “Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-Contr…

datacolada.org

Welcome to Bluesky. Please familiarise yourself with the following to understand the range of opinions it is acceptable to hold.

What are some examples of *non-fraudulent* major errors in scientific papers that had major consequences, perhaps after taking a long time to be corrected?

Could you check if you can see our website without errors/warning and let me know if not? We moved the INSPECT-SR guidance website from inspect.sr to inspect-sr.com because some networks were blocking the somewhat obscure .sr domain. Oddly, I have a report that the latter is throwing warnings too.

I’m still gathering papers, so this is a call to my social media research colleagues 📣: if there’s a paper you find especially interesting, informative, or thought-provoking (yours or someone else’s) please pop it in the comments or email me sabrina.norwood@unibe.ch!

Congratulations to the project “RegCheck,” which received🏆2026 SIPS commendation! RegCheck is a tool that makes it easier and quicker for researchers to compare published papers with their associated study registrations. regcheck.app

RegCheck

RegCheck is an AI tool to compare preregistrations with papers instantly.

regcheck.app

Some firewalls and networks didn't like inspect.sr, so now inspect-sr.com also points to the same site. Thanks to @steamtraen.eu and others for feedback.

Ian Hussey@ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 5mo ago

Many folk are surprised to discover thay Risk of Bias assessment tools tend not to interrogate the question “Did this study actually happen? And are its results trustworthy enough to believe?” Jack’s Cochrane endorsed INSPECT-SR checks have done a lot to mainstream such Trustworthiness Assessment.

See also d'Urso et al. www.cambridge.org/core/journal... and prior work by Clifford and coauthors www.cambridge.org/core/journal... onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.... Pre-treatment measures are fine (cc: R2). Contrary to 90s lore, 𝗆̶𝗈̶𝗇̶𝖾̶𝗒̶ priming ain't a thing.

Where to place sensitive questions? Experiments on survey response order and measures of discriminatory attitudes | Political Science Research and Methods | Cambridge Core

Where to place sensitive questions? Experiments on survey response order and measures of discriminatory attitudes

cambridge.org

Kevin Collins@kwcollins.bsky.social · 3w ago

Another new, useful paper on the potential biasing effects of measuring attitudes pre-treatment in survey experiments, this one focused on racial attitudes. Finds no bias from pre-treatment measures in two of three racial attitude measurement strategies www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

I’ve been told for years that it’s legally and ethically impossible to share medical RCT data. In 2024, the BMJ made sharing anonymised data mandatory, and now lots* of folk do it. Interesting how the barriers evaporated like that, isn’t it? *not everyone, compliance problems exist.

Availability of clinical trial individual patient data in the BMJ before and after adoption of a stringent data-sharing policy, compared with recent rates at other major medical journals

Background In 2024, the BMJ updated its data-sharing policy for clinical trials, requiring open deposit of deidentified individual participant data (IPD) before publication. We considered whether data...

medrxiv.org

There’s a scene in Succession after Tom has been put in charge of Cruises, and he goes to Ken to make him aware of the serious problems at the department. And Ken is like ‘I do not want to know about this. It is your job to make sure I don’t find out.’ A lot of PIs are like this.

Any suggestions for semi-popular online chi-square calculators? Sometimes less experienced people use them. To validate my {recalc} package, I'm reverse engineering them to make sure the package accommodate their results, as long as they're correct and sane. These are the ones I have already.

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.

OSF Changes | Center for Open Science

We are preparing substantial changes to OSF that will reduce its functionality, focus OSF on its unique strengths, and move toward an integrated model with complementary services. As part of that shif...

cos.io

The first official data on the effectiveness of Australia's social media ban is out. Nothing unexpected, but it's worth reading. www.esafety.gov.au/research/soc...

Are you interested in smartphone interventions?📱 We are too. Specifically we were interested in increasing retention in a digital friction intervention. Let me tell you about our new preprint (1/n) with @dgruning.bsky.social @frederik.riedel.wtf @malte.the100.ci using one sec

This fall semester, there's a cool lecture series at UZH titled "Fake Science". Presenters include @yesuncomm.bsky.social, @ianhussey.mmmdata.io and @heldleonhard.bsky.social. Takes place every second Tuesday at 6.15 pm, open to the public. More information: www.uzh.ch/de/events/rv...

New Jingle assessment: we show that the "Perspective Taking Protocol" has very poor reliability and near-zero convergent validity with other nominal measures of emotional and spatial perspective taking, empathy, and theory of mind. w/ @malte.the100.ci

PsyArXivBot@psyarxivbot.bsky.social · last mo.

The RFT Perspective Taking Protocol has very poor reliability and convergent validity with other measures of perspective taking, empathy, and theory of mind: A jingle assessment: https://osf.io/jb6c4

New paper (led by Xiangji Ying) showing LLMs can achieve high accuracy in detecting changes in outcomes across registrations versions. Thrilled to have been a small part of this great work. Check it out below!

Colby Vorland@colbyvorland.bsky.social · last mo.

We show that LLMs are good at detecting outcome definition changes between registration versions: An automated approach to improve clinical trial registration and to identify outcome changes on ClinicalTrials.gov rdcu.be/fwHWo @ndevito1.bsky.social @mjpages.bsky.social @jamiecummins.bsky.social

Have you ever #preregistered a #psychometric evaluation of a measure? We’re looking for examples! Shameless self-promotion encouraged! Or if you found one you really liked as an example, send it my way! #OpenScience #measurement

RegCheck ( regcheck.app) has received a Commendation from the Society for Improving Psychological Science! You can check the other awardees below too:

RegCheck

RegCheck is an AI tool to compare preregistrations with papers instantly.

regcheck.app

Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS)@improvingpsych.org · 2mo ago

🏆We are very pleased to announce the 2026 Awards Winners and Commendations recipients for the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science! 👏Join us in celebrating the exceptional projects that have revolutionized the field of psychological science. buff.ly/2lUKGFd

Sobering: initial trials with huge effect, large follow-up trial showing no evidence for an effect. But practice is already locked in and criticism is defused by pointing to random effects meta-analyses which are necessarily dominated by the initial trials. polypharmacy.substack.com/p/we-should-...

We should stop running clinical trials that cannot change practice

The case of prazosin for PTSD nightmares and the PACT trial

polypharmacy.substack.com

There are still a few days to apply to work with me and @malte.the100.ci as a PhD or postdoc on the development and evaluation of RegCheck. Help us research whether RegCheck works in practice in helping to reduce preregistration-paper discrepancies. Apply below!

Jamie Cummins@jamiecummins.bsky.social · 2mo ago

WE ARE HIRING! Come work with us (me + @malte.the100.ci) on developing and validating RegCheck. PhD or postdoc applications welcome. Folk with backgrounds in meta-science, psychology, (pre)clinical trials, and/or economics are especially invited to apply. jobs.unibe.ch/job-vacancie...

The philosophical opinions of neuroscientists: "While 64% of participants endorse reductive physicalism - the view that mental activity is fully reducible to brain function - only 17.5% reject free will." pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42455665/ n=2,657

Today in schmeasurement: Critical methods review of literature on 'double empathy' in autism concludes that, of 20 studies, > the experimental measures in these studies are largely not making measurements that would detect cognitive or affective empathy. link.springer.com/article/10.1...

Cognitive Empathy, Affective Empathy and Empirical Research on the Double Empathy Problem: A Critical Methodology Review - Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

Purpose The double empathy problem posits that autistic people and non-autistic people both lack empathy with the other side rather than the lack of empathy solely residing in one side. There have bee...

link.springer.com

If you had to guess, what proportion of social/personality psych articles include a claim that the findings can be applied in the real world?

Join our Many-Analysts Simulation Study—yes, you read that correctly—accepted as Stage 1 Registered Report in (AMPPS) @psychscience.bsky.social. We're trying to find out how researchers' simulation design choices shape methodological conclusions. Further info: osf.io/8vcxh/files/...