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?

Many articles are written to be published, not to be read. I propose this new badge to help me know when to save my breath.

This paper looks really good and important!

The first day of #SIPS2025 ends with a panel discussion with @balazsaczel.bsky.social, @simine.com, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, @eikofried.bsky.social, @fidlerfm.bsky.social and @syeducation.bsky.social ✨ #OpenScience @improvingpsych.org

Are you at #SIPS2025 in Budapest? We have PCI Psych stickers and (a limited number of) free PCI Psych t-shirts! You can fill out this form if you are here and interested in getting a tshirt: forms.gle/qYtUqohfZVBx... (Stickers are plentiful, get yours at the registration desk!)

it’s an older meme, sir, but it checks out

I’m in awe. Didn’t even have limecat on my bucket list.

If for no other reason, you should read our new paper on mixed methods in psychology because we managed to get limecat in there. doi.org/10.1177/2515...

Great new review on mixed-methods research in AMPPS! journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/... Congrats to @syeducation.bsky.social and @dulcewestberg.bsky.social . We need more of this work across the different areas of psych science!

Incredible OA resource if you're wanting to learn more about doing Monte Carlo work in R, with contemporary iteration approaches 👇🔥. Don't miss the "download" button if you want a full copy, locally (gods, bookdown [and quarto] is great...)

Is anyone talking about the big design flaws in this study, e.g. 1) small N, btwn subject design, 2) v. heterogeneous sample, 3) writing prompt confounded with condition (really!), 4) vast number of measures with no preregistration? I can't believe this is getting so much press...

Here’s a screenshot of the “addictive use” trajectories from the JAMA paper cited below. My educated guess from the details of the measure is that none of these lines comes close to bona fide “addictive” use 🧵

🎉 After 2 years of work, our #OpenScience guide for researchers in developing countries is LIVE! Check out our new preprint: osf.io/preprints/ps... We map the opportunities 🌟 + barriers 🧱 facing Global South researchers. *(1/4)*

This is a deeply problematic decision by Wiley! This decision is not only PCI-hostile. It has far-reaching preprint-hostile consequences. I hope this is all based on a big misunderstanding that Wiley will soon be able to resolve. Wiley should rapidly rectify its highly problematic decision.

From doi.org/10.1098/rsos... by Minocher, @rmcelreath.bsky.social, @babeheim.bsky.social... "The availability of social learning data decays exponentially with time since publication. The expected probability of finding material for any publication halves every 5.7 years on average (CI: 4.2–7.1)."

Worth reading in full. Many important implications here: * Wiley can only publish preprinted papers if final version differs substantially from preprint * After peer review, preprints are no longer preprints (careful with resubmissions!) * Wiley will change journal policies without consulting EiC

It's becoming increasingly clear that many traditional publishers are at odds with the norms & values of the scientific community. Researchers usually want to make their research widely available and usable; Wiley here is concerned about maintaining the ability to slap on a more restrictive license.

Wiley goes "PCI-hostile" with a backward looking move on preprints. Read more on it here: osf.io/tn8mh. Meanwhile, AMPPS just accepted our first PCI RR friendly direct to publication paper!