Anyone check in on Johnny Haidt to see if he thinks Bari Weiss still embodies the “telos of truth”

Your last saved meme is your moral philosophy

🚨🚨 ATTENTION: I’d like to announce that I, unilaterally but bindingly, have changed the name from “Spearman’s rho” to “Nivard-Spearman’s rho”. I’ll be in talks with package and software maintainers to organize a smooth transfer to the new, more appropriate, terminology.

I regularly cite Prinz et al.(www.nature.com/articles/nrd...) as a ref for low replicability in (non-psych) preclinical research. Believe it or not: They've omitted which studies they attempted to replicate! I'm guessing this isn't news to everyone, but it was to me. Bizarre.

I’m vocally skeptical of silicon samples, yet vocally impressed by SurveyBot3000. The difference: this does not rely on magic beans or assumed omniscience, it is trained and validated against a large corpus of highly relevant data and makes specific predictions with known accuracy and precision.

Finally, @bjoernhommel.bsky.social's and my paper introducing the SurveyBot3000 is officially out in AMPPS. It's a fine-tuned language model that guesstimates correlations between survey items from text alone. Not perfectly, but useful for search, for example. journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

This is bad

Author of “How the phone ban saved high school" clarifies that the article is not meant to imply that the phone ban has saved high school. There is no way this could cause confusion in this heated space. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Oliver Sacks admitted his case studies in The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat were fraudulent “fairy tales”. What Psych101 core texts are left? www.newyorker.com/magazine/202...

At ERROR, we cannot compete with million-dollar bounties for whistleblowers. But it is great to see sleuthing work rewarded, and institutions admitting when their researchers engaged in misconduct.

I am just learning of this 2015 retraction, adding to my "science as amateur software engineering" files. Seems they classified missing values as obs outcome of interest (divorce). Classified 32% of sample divorced, rather than true 5%. retractionwatch.com/2015/07/21/t...

While we are unable to offer publication in Nature Aging, we believe your manuscript may be suitable for our Gold Open Access sister journal.

Post-publication peer review is at it best when it's thoughtful, scrupulous, steeped in detail – and challenges key claims of the paper. @janhove.bsky.social's discussion of a recent paper on multilingualism exemplifies this.

Thanks @janhove.bsky.social for taking the time to check the paper — something that paid editors at Nature, as well as unpaid reviewers — apparently did not. Also shows once more that providing statistical code should be mandatory for every single paper. janhove.github.io/posts/2025-1...

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Agrees to Pay $15 Million to Settle Fraud Allegations Related to Scientific Research Grants. The relator [Sholto David] will receive $2,625,000 under today’s settlement. www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/d...

This is news to me. My fear is: will everyone 'collecting' silicon samples on Qualtrics realise that they have not collected data from real participants? Will some people not realise they have done 'ask-chatgpt-if-my-hypothesis-is-right' with extra steps?

Only about 2% of researchers have never cited their own work. Most of us are aware of inappropriately high rates of self-citation. I had never considered the opposite: that exceptionally low levels of self-citation could indicate papermill activity. fosci.substack.com/p/self-citat...

A new PNAS paper finds that polarization increased immediately after the release of Lady Gaga’s “Just Dance” and the advent of the late-2000s electro-pop era, which both appeared around the same year, 2008.

Huh I wonder if there were any other global events happening in in 2008. Guess we’ll never know.

thecurrentmoment.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/i... Polarisation has leapt multiple times since 1978. Cherry picking one such doesn’t alter that economic correlates are far more reliable, at least for affective polarisation. Tho social media may inform weaponising opinions of the already polarised.

The "smartphones/social media" discourse suffers from some amazing historical amnesia. There was no 2008 financial crisis and no global pandemic starting in 2020, it's all SCREENS SCREENS SCREENS. Major world events? Just the backdrop against which SCREENS happened.

Critique argues post-publication peer review "often focuses on minor details" and "risks damaging trust in both the research itself and the peer review process" found to contain: - Hallucinated references - Undisclosed COIs (EiC is author) - 8/9 authors have retractions or related scandals

Congratulations to @bethclarke.bsky.social on her PhD graduation!! It’s been amazing watching you become the incredible scholar that you are, thanks for letting me come along for the ride! You’re the best! 🎉🥂🌟

Psychology is not ‘Woke’: Examining claims of liberal bias. @bmhughes.bsky.social with the argument from his book, ‘Psychology’s Quiet Conservatism: How a Supposedly Woke Science Promotes Capitalism and Protects Privilege’. www.bps.org.uk/psychologist...

I was told that I have decisioned over 1,700 preprints this year! 😱Moderators, including myself, are driven by our commitment to making science better. This means staying vigilant against AI-generated spam & allowing researchers around the world to share their work openly. Pls support PsyArXiv!

Keeping this at hand in case I need to point to it and tap

You can do this right now: Think of a person who wrote a paper you love, whose work influenced or helped you, or has made your professional life better. Search up their email address. Shoot them a quick email of thanks. It means so, so much. This is a rough time of year, share some joy.

🔥 New viewpoint paper accepted at Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science! I propose a behavioral conceptualization of personality functioning (PF) that reframes the construct in terms of learned self-related repertoires rather than inferred inner structures.

I feel seen

We're thrilled to open registration for our 1st 2026 Replication Games. The event will be at the University of Zurich on January 19th. Psych, public health, pol sci and econ studies will be reproduced! Register here: www.surveymonkey.ca/r/Replicatio...

PNAS here I come

Many psychologists are treating LLMs as if they are the mind of god. This study had chatGPT rate how central academic disciplines are to various constructs. Why would chatGPT know this? Where is the evidence its ratings are reliable or valid? compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....

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...

Ok, once again zoomed into these odds ratios - significant one's market in yellow im the paper 🙈 This is from a respectable journal in my field

Achal Agrawal is on Nature’s list of 10 people who shaped science in 2025. His work helped change India’s university rankings system to include a penalty for large number of retractions. www.nature.com/articles/d41...

Project Implicit gives you feedback when you complete an IAT, and the IAT literature has aspired to individual level measurement since its inception. In this article, we quantify the individual level uncertainty around these estimates and show that IAT effects can say very little about individuals.

Let me tell you a story. Perhaps you can guess where this is going... though it does have a bit of a twist. I was poking around Google Scholar for publications about the relationship between chatbots and wellness. Oh how useful: a systematic literature review! Let's dig into the findings. 🧵

Today’s example of “self reported behaviour is a poor proxy of behaviour”: environmental behaviour

Social media ~ mental health meta-analysis: - Cited 7 times - The 45 included studies appear not to exist - The authors’ institution appears not to exist - The journal editors won’t respond

So...my undergrad thesis student is doing a quality analysis of studies found in meta-analyses. She identified a few and we contacted the authors to request their effect sizes and other variables for the studies in their papers. Here's what happened: scientiapsychiatrica.com/index.php/Sc...

Metascientists step up as role models for a healthy error culture in science. Here is a great case where an author and a critical reader collaborated to set the record straight.

1. Transparency is necessary for credibility 2. Transparency is hard to change 3. Require transparency* 4. Transparency is not magic 5. Journals are part of problem 6. Expect more from journals 7. Peer review is not magic 8. A crisis can look a lot like „normal“ science 9. Meta-analysis is not magic

Despite Prepublication Peer Review being a core part of science, training materials for it are sparse. This open source guide is very valuable for ECRs! ecr-reviewers.gitlab.io/guide/

We might be at a stage where systematic reviews without checks of trustworthiness become a problem in itself - even a danger to patients, as these reviews are considered as highest level of evidence and the foundation of guidelines and clinical practice

Very nice to see this @retractionwatch.com story from today refer to our student newspaper interview with Eysenck's long-term collaborator Ronald Grossarth-Maticek from 2020: www.ruprecht.de/2020/01/28/t...

Ruben is an extremely smart person and also a super nice guy. Work with him!

geomtextpath can really help make a plot easier to interpret. Nice to avoid using a legend. #rstats #dataviz

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