It's annoying that nonacademics hold this "deadweight" idea, and even more when I hear it from administrators, as I occasionally have. I went in to academia because I wanted to teach and write. Why would I quit just because I got tenure?
Still buzzing from Perspectives on Scientific Error 💡🌱
The smaller, one-stream format worked so well to create the feeling of a continuous, shared conversation across sessions (pictured: me making a cameo in @liztenney.bsky.social's slides!) #PSE8
Collaborating on this was fun - and it shows that research stays - in addition to their immediate impact- can still promote collaboration and productivity 15 years later! Thank you @liztenney.bsky.social for asking me to join the team!
Prediction: Social psychologists will still insist that the book's thesis is valid, thereby ironically validating its thesis
Did you just injure your knee? Here is your comprehensive, empirically-supported, insurance-covered, twice-weekly PT to make sure you fully recover your ability to ski.
Did you just have a 9-pound baby cut out of your midsection? Here is your baby.
Interesting! I can’t get past the EIC of Nature coming out to Final Countdown. The playlist does get better from there.
“I’m not complaining, and I don’t expect you to feel sorry for me. I chose to be shaken in this bag of rats. At any point, we could all have done nothing.” and other amazing metaphors in this worthwhile substack describing woes of cleaning up bad science by @jamesheathers.bsky.social
Replications are just as valuable as “original” research. Is this a hot take? If you disagree, have you actually read one or tried to do one?
In case people needed another reason not to be a jerk to their coworkers… hbr.org/2025/01/rese...
New recording by Salt Lake City band Hoofless “Get In”. This song is so good open.spotify.com/track/6DbLgT...
If scientists disagree about conclusions or analyses while doing research and writing a paper, should they hide it to tell a better story to the public? No… www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
@nicholascoles.bsky.social @jasonchin.bsky.social @roseodea.bsky.social @jackfriedrich @alexh.bsky.social
If the field moves more to open or transparent peer review, certain groups may systematically receive harsher reviews, or biased and embarrassing comments from reviewers, and public seeing that uncritically is problematic. Along with openness we need metascience, post pub convo, and accountability
“I don’t want to move to Toronto” 🎵🎶🎤 sing it @mattarbogast
open.spotify.com/track/65fpaJ...
With @jackiemchen.bsky.social and @MckenziePreston
The 3Ps:
The 1st P in deciding which project to work on is People. Work with people you like who use good research practices.
The 2nd is passion. The topic should be worthwhile.
The 3rd is publishable (used to be p-value). Work on projects with solid data/results.
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
A photo saying “blah blah blah” on repeat
Voice-to-text message from my youngest. He’s really got the hang of it.
I’m a fan of trying to quantify how often reviewers & editors check authors’ preregistrations (eg, by @syeducation.bsky.social), but also we should not forget that reviewers fail to check for deviations from a priori plans in 100% of unpreregistered studies. Because they can’t.
Was trying to tell a friend about Bluesky, said what do you do that’s cool we can look it up. He said golf. No results found for #tigerwoods. How does this thing work? Is this the first discussion about Tiger?
Some Data Indicating that Editors and Reviewers Do Not Check Preregistrations during the Review Process: http://osf.io/nh7qw/
Had a manuscript rejected at #AMJ. Boilerplate language in letter “encourages” open science practices like posting data & preregistration. No acknowledgement we did these. If AMJ cares about “transparency and rigor” Editorial team should get training on how to weight it, or #OS should be required.
