William Ngiam | 严祥全

@williamngiam.github.io

Computational cognitive neuroscientist at Adelaide University | Perception, Attention, Learning and Memory Lab (https://palm-lab.github.io) | Open Practices Editor at Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics | ReproducibiliTea | http://williamngiam.github.io

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.

📅 Make sure that you have the ReproducibiliTea conference marked in your calendars on Friday! I will be chairing the first session where we look at some of the issues around computational reproducibility including statistical interpretation, sleuthing and review, and dissemination. Link below👇

Session 1: Big Problems in Reproducibility · Spilling the ReproducibiliTea 2026

Where does reproducibility break down? Four short talks on computational reproducibility, the misuse of statistics, paper mills and research fraud, and what the editorial process can and cannot catch ...

reproducibilitea.org

If psychological judgments of similarity are non-metric (Tversky, 1977), and we are evaluating similarity of neural representations by using metric spaces (like Procrustes distance), then how does that mismatch get resolved for neural representations of similarity?

Can we put OpenAI/Anthropic/etc. through any Institutional Review Board / Research Ethics Committee? It would be so fun to watch them implode from all the administrative barriers and minutiae they have to get through to do their "research" (let alone address all the actual ethical issues).

Michelle Yeoh saying "Have you heard the one about the unstoppable force that met the immovable object?"

🚨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

New Blog post: Which Data Repository Should you Use? In light of OSF closing down, I compare Zenodo, Dataverse, ResearchBox, PsychArchive, and local repositories on six important dimensions. If you want to know which to pick: It depends! daniellakens.blogspot.com/2026/08/whic...

Which Data Repository Should You Use?

The Center for Open Science has announced that from November 16, 2026, no new projects can be created on the Open Science Framework. After F...

daniellakens.blogspot.com

I've been data editing for Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics for a year and a bit now; I feel slightly vindicated for nagging people about READMEs in their repositories and to organise their files. Note that you won't be able to make edits to existing repos from mid-February onwards!

Jonathan Peelle@jpeelle.bsky.social · last mo.

Yikes “Starting November 16, 2026, no new projects or child components of existing projects can be created on OSF. After February 19, 2027, all public and private OSF projects will become read-only.” www.cos.io/osf-changes

On a quick skim, the core function that OSF will fulfil is registration of studies (plus protocols and analysis plans) and hosting preprints. This means we will need to find data repositories for new projects following mid-November; perhaps Github, Zenodo, or university-operated commons.

Jonathan Peelle@jpeelle.bsky.social · last mo.

Yikes “Starting November 16, 2026, no new projects or child components of existing projects can be created on OSF. After February 19, 2027, all public and private OSF projects will become read-only.” www.cos.io/osf-changes

Yikes “Starting November 16, 2026, no new projects or child components of existing projects can be created on OSF. After February 19, 2027, all public and private OSF projects will become read-only.” www.cos.io/osf-changes

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

New preprint! Have you ever wanted to measure psychometric functions in high-dimensional stimulus spaces, but realised that this is infeasible? We present and validate a technique to adaptively estimate psychometric functions for stimulus spaces up to 50 dimensions. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...

Adaptive experiments in high-dimensional feature spaces: A particle filtering approach

Behavioral experiments are often infeasible when stimulus spaces have many dimensions or when testing time is limited. One way to address this challenge is adaptive stimulus selection, where informati...

biorxiv.org

Ever thought meta-research and Open Science needed a virtual conference that all could attend? @reproducibilitea.org is putting one together in September, with the program shaping up to be insightful and impactful. Please reach out if you would like to help! reproducibilitea.org/conference2026

Spilling the ReproducibiliTea 2026

An online conference on reproducibility in research: open discussions, fresh perspectives, and community building with researchers worldwide.

reproducibilitea.org

(1/6) Do our visual neuroscience findings actually replicate? And do they generalize beyond the datasets they were found in? We've lauched re:vision, a community-driven initiative to answer these questions, and we are looking for scientistis to participate. re-vision-initiative.org

This is critical reading for those wondering about the future of open science; we ought to make progress by being clear-eyed on the origins of the movement (and in this case, the dangers raised by the sources of seed funding being those with wealth and influence).

Post nicht verfügbar.

My preprint with @mdlbayes.bsky.social on inferring the representation underlying cognitive tasks has been updated: osf.io/preprints/ps.... It has a new title, upgrades of our previous models, additional analyses, and a stronger discussion that reflects our deeper and clearer thinking. /1

OSF

osf.io

William Ngiam | 严祥全@williamngiam.github.io · 11mo ago

What is the representation underlying cognition? Formal models rely on multidimensional scaling of similarity judgments to derive the representation. In this preprint with @mdlbayes.bsky.social, we take an alternative approach; we build Bayesian generative models for three cognitive tasks. /1