Nico Trajtenberg 🐝

@nicotrajtenberg.bsky.social

"Animals appear to be so similar to humans that at times it is impossible to distinguish them" K'nyo Mobutu (antropophagus) Augusto Monterroso

Why do people talk about their data in their research question? E.g. "Using a population-based sample with high-resolution estimates of fine-particle exposure, we aimed to..." The RQ is what you want to know and the data come after to help you study it. There's no reason to mix the two.

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.

'I was the worst psychometrician among the psychometricians, and the worst philosopher among the philosophers. But I was the best psychometrician among the philosophers, and the best philosopher among the psychometricians' Amazing interview to Denny Borsboom! sciphipodcast.org/podcast/2019...

Episode 62 - Denny Borsboom — SCI PHI Podcast

On Episode 62, Nick chats with Dr. Denny Borsboom, Professor of Psychology and program leader of the Psychological Methods Group at the University of Amsterdam, about how he applies philosophy of scie...

sciphipodcast.org

The worst cancer of UK universities are colleagues who use administrative roles just as promotion vehicles, invent extra tasks with no value for anyone, make everyone else’s life more difficult, and call it “leadership”. Dante should have added an extra circle of hell for these parasites

I consider myself an interdisciplinary scientist. A post on LinkedIn challenged the idea that we should mentor our students to be more interdisciplinary. Here are my thoughts on what that means in my new APS Presidential column. www.psychologicalscience.org/publications...

Is Interdisciplinary Science Worth It?

"You don't want scholars answering to two or more disciplines. You want them to enrich and integrate their own discipline with ideas drawn from others."

psychologicalscience.org