did… did a journal write this?

And importantly: there is no external “system” waiting to reform itself. Senior researchers are the system. We are editors, reviewers, grant panelists, trainers, hirers, promoters, producers, and consumers of research. We already possess many of the levers needed to change incentives and norms. 8/8

Excited to share this one: Open Science Now: A Response to Commentaries on Van Til et al. (with @kaelavantil.bsky.social, @nphillips36.bsky.social, Tinawei (Vera) Du, Leigha Rose, @jdmiller.bsky) osf.io/preprints/ps... See below for the TLDR version 1/8

Last weekend I received the Troland Research Award from the @nationalacademies.org. I’m so grateful to the communities who made this work possible. It's strange to receive this award at a time when much of the work being recognized is not eligible for federal funding. My remarks 👇 and a 🧵>>

First copies of Absent Minds are here 💙 Launch on 7th May! www.waterstones.com/book/absent-...

Why on earth is Demography publishing a paper using these ridiculous categories

Having FINALLY spent some quality time with @syeducation.bsky.social talking methods and meta-science, I most enthusiastically recommend applying for this!

Postdoc available! There are two T32 positions at Minnesota focusing on developmental psychopathology, with a large selection of potential mentors. I could serve as primary mentor for someone interested in intersections with metascience and/or diversity. Apply now! drive.google.com/file/d/18SoO...

Just wrote a new blogpost trying to summarize my thoughts on the question of how and whether to use AI for research in psychology and cognitive science: babieslearninglanguage.blogspot.com/2026/04/usin...

"Preprinting Does Not Meet Science’s Duty of Care Responsibility to Society" raises questions such as "why do they talk of science as a monolithic thing but only discuss a narrow corner of it?" and "what the hell?" journal.trialanderror.org/pub/preprint...

New paper, out this week in PLOS One, suggests that most close relationship self-report measures are primarily capturing relationship quality 🧵 journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...

🚨 Researchers, take note! Animal Biology now publishes Registered Reports! 🐒 💡 Peer review happens before results are collected. Studies are judged on quality & rigour, not “significant” outcomes.

No Kings #TwinCities

📢 CFP: Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology Special Section: Open Science in Multicultural Psychology Empirical & conceptual work welcome across quant, qual, mixed & CBPR approaches, including supportive & critical perspectives 📅 LOI due May 15, 2026 🔗 tinyurl.com/CDEMP-OpenSc...

I finally gave "Is open science neoliberal?" by @uyguntunc.bsky.social @mntunc.bsky.social and Eper a close read. It made sense of critiques that did not resonate w/ how I understand the reform movement. Are there rejoinders defending the neoliberal attribution or challenging this description?

I’m reminded of this comic almost every time I check LinkedIn

I searched my zotero library for 'personal communication', because these tend to be interesting and can illustrate how science really works. I was not disappointed, the most recent one in my library was this from @syeducation.bsky.social. More of this! doi.org/10.36850/mr11

This is a bit too on the nose #SPSP2026

Great piece!

This is a very useful post, in my opinion! I enjoyed the process of reading it, and the product of that will be me referencing it frequently in conversations and having it inform my thinking. Let me explain why I like it... 1/5

Great post elaborating on how (not) to use AI (and technology) in scientific research!

A nice, level-headed post about the motivations and outcomes of using technology (including LLMs) in research that you care about.

Thanks, Moin -- A lot of my thinking about AI use is a jumbled, grumpy mess, so your process/product distinction is super clarifying. BTW I'm one of those references-by-hand sadists (it helps me better memorize specific publications for future offhand reference)

Interesting post!

New post! "Valuing the Process vs. the Product in Research," in which I try to describe some of the tensions around using GenAI/LLMs in scientific research, and why it can be so difficult to have productive conversations on the topic. getsyeducated.substack.com/p/valuing-th...

T32 Postdoc position in developmental psychopathology at UMN Institute of Child Development! There are many excellent primary mentors available, as well as an even better set of secondary mentors to choose from (including me). See link for details, due April 1. drive.google.com/file/d/18SoO...

If you want to recognize these bad faith actors, a clear giveaway is talking about Open Scientists or Metascientists as if they all think the same way, ignoring the huge diversity among people in this community. A paper that analyze this bad faith criticism: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

Right, so, on a listserv for scientific journal editors someone just compared open science advocates to ICE. Good times.

Not just Minneapolis, Minnesota www.thenation.com/article/acti...

This is important. I hear from folks thinking that the terror is only in Minneapolis. It is also in St. Paul, the suburbs, and greater Minnesota, and so is the strong and peaceful community resistance.

Vigil in St. Paul, Minnesota. -7 F outside. We are a peaceful, loving people, and our spirit will not be broken.

Vigil in St. Paul, Minnesota. -7 F outside. We are a peaceful, loving people, and our spirit will not be broken.

I’m watching friends succumb to doom watching what’s happening in Minnesota and I want to shake them and scream “Can’t you see the people organizing? Can’t you see them winning?”. Doom is a warm blanket of helplessness that keeps you from the fight.

I’ve seen a lot in my 26 years teaching in Saint Paul but today’s the first no school day due to the city being terrorized by the federal government

Here's a suggestion for a New Year's resolution: If you see influential bad research, say something. One part of the whole replication crisis story is that a lot of psychological researchers privately knew that a lot of stuff was bad, but it wasn't discussed publicly.

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