The International Conference on the Science of Science & Innovation #ICSSI2026 will be in beautiful Boulder, CO, USA! ☀️ June 29 - July 1 ☀️ & Open Data Hackathon, June 28 🧑‍💻 We welcome submissions on all topics in the science of science and innovation, broadly defined. Learn more at 👉 icssi.org 👈

trying out a new feature, lmk if it works

ngl Copilot in Word is far more useful than I originally thought. It's a great way to break down my attachment to certain writing and power through a swamp of low-level edits quickly. Consider it for polishing things up before submission. #hottake

Qualitative researchers, have you used any automated tools for evaluating research (micro tasks or full-blown peer review)? #qualitative #qual #peerreview

--dangerously skip international law

Here's a nice indictment of the modern publishing system and a solution. But surely the next generation will not have to find such limiting workarounds?

Ultimate self-citation here. Can't be beat. 💤💤💤💤💤

One of the most deflating aspects of metascience discourse in the past decade and a half has therefore been that the sentiment after a prominent failed replication study generally is: "Another area that's garbage & not worth studying" instead of asking "Interesting but what if we did..." questions.

198 effect sizes in ego depletion resesrch showed an effect size of d=0.62. Preregistered large replications (including some by original authors) yielded an effect size of 0. No one has been able to offer any other explanation for this huge research waste than massive p-hacking.

In which we learn @acm.org is exceptionally bad at retracting articles that need retracting: arxiv.org/abs/2602.191...

search is getting an upgrade soon. if you could fix or change something thing about it, what would it be?

The difference between a paper people have read and one they haven't is you talking about it a lot. Way more than you want to. It would be nice if search mechanisms resolved this problem but right now they don't

📖 Reading science news articles online is broken. Most sci journalists miss the skeptical takes from PubPeer and academic social media. 💡Someone in #scicomm should program a browser extension that overlays annotations from @PubPeer and other social media on the article page.

I've just discovered that 2 months after John Hattie threatened to sue me for calling him a plagiarist, he published a book containing this (and 13 other) instances of egregious plagiarism. It would be funny if he didn't remain such a respected & protected figure. open.substack.com/pub/stephenv...

@authentisci.bsky.social is the most exciting tech I've seen in months. Problem: People are unsure of the reliability of science news. Solution: Users click through a browser extension to nominate articles for review by relevant, active experts. authentisci.com/dashboard

My top educational preference would be for all multi-media to have integrated active feedback and quizzing. Now with LLMs, anything you touch online can instantly also have a quiz to practice retrieval.

I'll be presenting a vision for crowdsourcing research synthesis at the hybrid ATProto Science event in March (Vancouver, BC). #ATProto took me a while to understand, but now I'm sold on its potential as a key part of the future of science.

There is probably no worse way to describe a volunteer peer reviewer than by: "Dear [conference name] + [year] + 'reviewer'" But at least it shows with comedic flair how we are viewed.

Maybe just maybe, in this crowded job market, this one guy's got it all figured out.

I'll be presenting a vision for crowdsourcing research synthesis at the hybrid ATProto Science event in March (Vancouver, BC). #ATProto took me a while to understand, but now I'm sold on its potential as a key part of the future of science.

I am surprised these don't yet have a "an LLM told me about you"

I feel like there’s a test of identity in this flyer. Only the true of heart will avoid a rare Introverts meetup.

📅 Mark your calendars for #SIPS2027! The 2027 SIPS conference, organized in collaboration with the Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science @aimosinc.bsky.social, will be held in November at the University of Melbourne, Australia. We are looking forward to seeing you there!

A nice reform to support the publication or replications (a major issue): 1. plan and submit study to journal as replication 2. review 3. accept/reject based on the idea, not data 4. collect data 5. complete paper and submit for acceptance Does this make doing replications more palatable to you?

Cartoon for @airmail.news

👨🏼‍🎓 Me: Stews over the Theoretical Contributions section of the Discussion for months in quiet contemplation. Writing, rewriting, doubting, never fully sure. 🤖 ML researchers: "We offer no explanation as to why these architectures seem to work; we attribute their success... to divine benevolence."

I thought my #AcademicWriting was bold and spicy 🌶️ In this 🤖AI preprint, I find an example that asks me to level up my game: “Karl Marx wrote that “the human essence is the ensemble of social relations”

Whereas retractions usually expose scandals in science, citations to retracted articles are a bigger scandal, especially when they are post-retraction. XeraRetractions web app: openscience.xera.ac/retractions

Now that almost every social media system in the US is owned by like, 3 people, the existence of open algorithms and protocols becomes totally critical

This one's a first for me. The paper did, in fact, contain data.

Reason #92893 for why **scholars** need to own scholarly infrastructure. Fed up, author issues her own retraction after journal ghosts her "She documented the self-retraction on Figshare... she “unilaterally retracts” the article for “persistent non-responsiveness of the publisher”

We already have several speakers and volunteers in need of travel support to attend #ATScience - if you’re able to pitch in with event sponsorship, please be in touch with us here or [email protected]! Tons of great energy swirling around ATScience, let’s make it the best possible for everyone!

New podcast klaxon! I'm launching a podcast called Under Review that explores academia's wicked problems. My esteemed guests are going to get the chance to turn academia off and back on again as well as decide what goes into the Under Review waste paper bin. www.youtube.com/watch?v=anuj...

Looking for user panelists to contribute to the Stage 2 of our registered report: Developing and Piloting a QUick Evaluation of Research Integrity for Evidence Synthesis in Educational Research (QUERIES-Edu). osf.io/tc5n3 If you’re interested, sign up here: forms.gle/SSmPmaCrdGvnHPdx9

Adversarial collabs. aside, 1. Do you/colleagues participate in *agnostic* or *consulting* collabs.? 2. Do they work well? Example: Scholar A helps Scholar B test something using methods more familiar to A even tho A doesn't have an ax to grind WRT B's literature/debate.

Serious question: I've been reviewing journal submissions for <20 years but this is the first time that I am reading something so clearly duplicitous that I feel that the authors' institutions should be contacted. Is there ever a reason or way to do this?

Should the requirements for a self-citation be higher than for a citation to another scholar?

Before the jingle-jangle fallacy, there were cyberneticians: "There are fields of scientific work... in which every single notion receives a separate name from each group, and in which important work has been triplicated..." Weiner, Cybernetics (1948)

What's stopping you from leaving comments on preprints and papers somewhere online? - fear? - time? - energy?

One thing I want to get better at is giving feedback on preprints (both constructive and plainly positive). There are lots of times where I have something to formulated in my head to share to authors but never actually get around to doing it. I just gotta write it down and press send.

Sign up now for the Perspectives on Scientific Error Conference (PSE) on 11 - 13 Feb in Leiden, the Netherlands We will be hosting a mentor-mentee lunch during the conference. Sign up, and you will be matched to another academic based on shared research interests! Don't miss out! See you there 🙌

If you need more evidence that developing acronyms in papers is inadvisable for most, here it is: "interpersonal brain synchronization (IBS)." 😬 Maybe stick to the full name instead.

Crowdsourcing IMDB content sure has its disadvantages. Gotta have some kind of filter for the snarky commenters posting Trivia like: "Eline is trying to destroy the art of acting by her persistent insistence of using Al Generated actors instead of real-life actors."

Shoutout to the heart-warming shoutout in this Acknowledgements section: "We also thank Carolyn Gilbert, who in no way helped this paper get written, but is wonderful so she gets mentioned anyway."

The world today, in a nutshell. h/t the other site

"Credit in research goes hand in hand with responsibility" www.nature.com/articles/d41... Hmm. How often have you seen a big Nature or Science paper with 20 authors, who all get to enjoy the credit, but if it gets retracted it turns out the first author was solely responsible?

If people expert in research methods publicise lists of research they have assessed as adequate and at least potentially significant, that might help focus attention on deserving work, and less on work that's very-difficult-to-assess-regardless-of-expertise. bsky.app/profile/matt...

"The rewards to 'discovering' a spectacular scientific finding [in psychology] are large; the rewards to debunking frauds or deflating exaggerated claims are small if not non-existent. If these are the rules of the game, we should not be surprised at the way the game is played."

"attempts to introduce [preprint commenting systems] like this have not, so far, been very successful..." tinyurl.com/3dtax8jz These words of caution on the naive design of preprint commenting systems (mostly) ring true ~9 years later. The one exception: www.alphaxiv.org