A recent study purports to have found that multilingualism protects against accelerated ageing. I've taken a closer look at it, and it doesn't look good. New blog post: "Does multilingualism really protect against accelerated ageing? Some critical comments" janhove.github.io/posts/2025-1...

To me it’s just confirmation bias. Like that time I wanted to believe people want to be alone on xmas day (since I come from a huge family), completely ignoring Home Alone being a xmas movie. This google trend certainly confirmed my belief. I learned later my tweet/bias got cited in a stats course 😆

Big new blogpost! My guide to data visualization, which includes a very long table of contents, tons of charts, and more. --> Why data visualization matters and how to make charts more effective, clear, transparent, and sometimes, beautiful. www.scientificdiscovery.dev/p/salonis-gu...

A gift from a student, they know me so well. #metascience

Works the other way around too. “If I was Jonathan Haidt, how would I destroy the next generation?”

I maintain that once somebody published a study, anybody can criticize it publicly, & there is no *obligation* to wait for the original authors' (OA) to reply. 1st, why would the OAs get to have the last word at every step? 2nd, waiting opens up a loophole for the OAs to derail the process.

Not so fast: The effect of review blinding on prestige bias was not statistically significant (diff-in-diff “marginal” and upon closer inspection likely influenced by outliers)

In 2014 I introduced a replication project in my grad research methods class. I taught this version of the class 4 times (no longer teach it). Some tallies: 9 published replication papers; 30 grad student authors; 19 *open* data sets; materials, syntax, etc also open (all on OSF). Check them out 👇

I have no expertise to evaluate the problems of this particular paper, but I think it’s *very very important* that we don’t present “the reviewer recommended rejection” as evidence of scientific or editorial misconduct.

The real issue, IMO, is neither education nor tools. It’s that the numbers don’t matter. We quantify reality with numbers that don’t matter. It’s hard to care about 7 ooglebliks plus or minus 2 ooglebliks if nobody gives a fuck what an oogleblik is

the internet is working just fine, thanks.

Issue 22 of RDM Weekly is out! 📬 - FAIR Data Cheatsheet @w-u-r.bsky.social - Open Research: Examples of Good Practice, and Resources Across Disciplines @ukrepro.bsky.social - 3 Myths About Open Science That Just Won’t Die @syeducation.bsky.social and more! rdmweekly.substack.com/p/rdm-weekly...

I thought about this point a bit more and I think Moin is onto something 😅 take randomized experiments, which are a huge hassle — yet social psych has determined that “this is what science looks like”, and so they be randomizing (for better or worse), no matter what.

Psychology wants to stay WEIRD, not go WILD: https://osf.io/bxk6c

A quick (1000 words) read to enjoy with your morning coffee or afternoon tea: "Psychology wants to stay WEIRD, not go WILD" Why hasn't psychology diversified it samples, methods, theories, etc.? Because it doesn't want to. osf.io/preprints/ps...

Shout out to @psychmag.bsky.social for being speedy, open access, and helping to share things I care about quickly and freely: www.bps.org.uk/psychologist...

What's the take home message? If you're submitting AI slop you're a loser. You're just making these great free services harder to run, and making it more difficult to separate signal (science) from noise (your crappy AI shit.)

There still seems to be a lot of confusion about significance testing in psych. No, p-values *don’t* become useless at large N. This flawed point also used to be framed as "too much power". But power isn't the problem – it's 1) unbalanced error rates and 2) the (lack of a) SESOI. 1/ >

MetaROR, a platform for reviews of research on research, is a success! We have published 24 sets of reviews and have 16 submissions in process. MetaROR now has 9 partners - these are journals that agree to use our reviews when authors submit to them. metaror.org #metascience #openaccess

We built the openESM database: ▶️60 openly available experience sampling datasets (16K+ participants, 740K+ obs.) in one place ▶️Harmonized (meta-)data, fully open-source software ▶️Filter & search all data, simply download via R/Python Find out more: 🌐 openesmdata.org 📝 doi.org/10.31234/osf...

Can AI simulations of human research participants advance cognitive science? In @cp-trendscognsci.bsky.social, @lmesseri.bsky.social & I analyze this vision. We show how “AI Surrogates” entrench practices that limit the generalizability of cognitive science while aspiring to do the opposite. 1/

Results of the replication are in! Chocolate is more desirable than poop: Cohen's d_rm = 6.20, 95%CI [5.63, 6.78] N = 486, two single item 1-7 Likert scales of desirability. w/ @jamiecummins.bsky.social

Nice post from Matti on preprints and the nonsense of journals. This paragraph is outstanding.

Against Publishing: universonline.nl/nieuws/2025/... Preprints are read, shared, and cited, yet still dismissed as incomplete until blessed by a publisher. I argue that the true measure of scholarship lies in open exchange, not in the industry’s gatekeeping of what counts as published.

Apropos of recent open science conversations - this paper is an awesome primer for grad students and faculty who want to learn more: online.ucpress.edu/collabra/art...

"The simplest recommendation that flows from my arguments in this article is that we need to enhance the degree of specificity and precision when making theoretical claims." By @syeducation.bsky.social

Just learned about this diamond journal, which has apparently been running since 2015! Looks like a very nice place for any meta-sciency work & probably deserves some visibility. septentrio.uit.no/index.php/no...

Can large language models stand in for human participants? Many social scientists seem to think so, and are already using "silicon samples" in research. One problem: depending on the analytic decisions made, you can basically get these samples to show any effect you want. THREAD 🧵

In a new paper, my colleagues and I set out to demonstrate how method biases can create spurious findings in relationship science, by using a seemingly meaningless scale (e.g., "My relationship has very good Saturn") to predict relationship outcomes. journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

This is a good post, tracking closely with my own (often unpopular) views on the subject. Worth a read for anyone with interest or experience in interdisciplinary work.

Reread this one for the history of psych class I am teaching and was reminded of how good it is. Short, thoughtful, and provocative. A highly worthwhile read. doi.org/10.1037/gpr0...

If this is turning into a battle, then the researchers’ possible counter is to normalize updating preprints and CVs with “accepted at journal x” as sufficient for getting publication credit and not pay the fees.

✨✨ I will be reviewing applications for the University of Minnesota psychology PhD program this fall! Information for potential applicants can be found on my lab website: ringwaldlab.psych.umn.edu/join-lab Please spread the word!

a recent study led by @anniewham.bsky.social takes a specific look at post-publication critique in psychology too, in case that's of interest doi.org/10.31234/osf...

Excellent essay outlining the reasons why scientific critique is currently broken -- would love to learn more about the historical part ie how/why things have changed over years (ht @syeducation.bsky.social ) www.oncologynewscentral.com/oncology/wha...

Due to a recent influx of problematic submissions, PsyArXiv has switched to pre-moderating its content. If your submitted preprint had not yet been approved, it will be temporarily inaccessible to the public (you can still view your preprint when logged into your OSF account). #PsychSciSky

Yes. I have been puzzling over how there is such a large gap in some accounts of the reform movement and my experience living and observing it. A hypothesis is that many researchers who have gotten interested in studying it, did so after the movement had some success and so trace it from that lens.

I'll take this opportunity to re-share my most cherished work, originally written one day in 2020 to avoid doing the stuff I actually needed to do. It is a quick read, and you might get a laugh: osf.io/preprints/ps...

This is unfortunate: www.nytimes.com/2025/07/28/u... I wrote to the president of Harvard. I hope other faculty will speak their conscience, even if it means more struggle ahead.

New blog post! Calculating a correlation is easy enough. But let's say you calculated two of them and they happen to differ. What follows from that? Turns out there are too many moving parts for an easy answer. www.the100.ci/2025/07/28/w...

It's only cancel culture if it comes from the democratic regions of the U.S. Otherwise it's sparkling authoritarianism.

Still playing around with creating an archive of open science blogs discussing the replication crisis. Here's an overview of when blogs first posted, and last posted. 2016 and 2017 were a peak for psychologists interacting and communicating through in total more than 3000 blog posts.

I love Registered Reports because it's no fun wrestling with reviewers about design decisions that we can do nothing about after data collection. But still, SO few journals in my research area accept them. So I just fired off a load of this email. Here if you want to do the same: osf.io/n6bx9

I am often told that public critique of published articles must also solve the issues found. I think this frequently enforced requirement hinders scientific self-correction. Blog post: mmmdata.io/posts/2025/0...

New post! "A Tale of Two Science Reform Movements," in which I compare the recent #Metascience2025 and #SIPS2025 conferences, and find that I am much more at home at one than the other. getsyeducated.substack.com/p/a-tale-of-...

remarkable to me how much of (my) #sips2025 was about publishing reform, but how totally absent that has been from #metascience2025 (indeed, the very opposite with an elsevier VP joining a keynote panel) go submit to @psych.peercommunityin.org folks!

It was all just vibes! But what shocked me even more was promoting the lab leak theory 🤯 (The podcast “If Books Could Kill” has a recent very good discussion of the evidence around this theory and the political forces pushing it)

A whole lot of cringe already at #Metascience2025, but this takes the cake (sound on, at your peril)

I can't tell if it's because I'm too NYC focused but does it feel like the news cycle spent more time crashing out on the fact that NYC picked a brown Muslim dude as is primary candidate then it did on a right wing extremist who shot 2 Minnesota legislators killing one, her husband and dog?