Anne Scheel
@annemscheel
Assistant prof at Utrecht University, trying to make science as reproducible as non-scientists think it is. Blogs at @the100ci.
3) Hard publication targets make RRs unpopular if the target can’t be met with RRs alone. If it can, it makes RRs more attractive than at baseline. 4) Competition is the biggest RR-killer in our model. Intense competition makes them widely unpopular & completely unviable in fields with low pace. 11/
2) Being able to run many studies before being evaluated (e.g., applying for a job) cancels out most other effects. Researchers with 'slow pace', e.g. in fields with slow or costly data collection, are most affected by increasing/decreasing career returns, publication targets, and competition. 10/
Looks like a cool analysis, but note that it excludes preprints that were never published. So this last sentence in the abstract amounts to ‘conditioning on preprints accepted by the scientific community, preprints are good enough to be accepted by the scientific community’.
Doesn’t sound like 300 scans would be too difficult to achieve for someone who’s given *checks notes* >1,3K talks
theories aim to explain and which are thus also crucial for theory building. Here’s a figure from a preprint that I still need to revise that tries to tease these things apart.
We used one reaction-time example for illustrative purposes in this paper: academic.oup.com/psychsocgero... It’s very simple but I still quite like it. In general, I think going to applied situations can help a lot with determining SESOIs.
Seeing that comments on this are getting a little more political, I want to highlight that my gripe is very much with *the headline* specifically. Neither Alan Milburn nor the author of the article seems to be so seriously confused about the situation. Link to full article: archive.is/pA2lv
New newspaper headline for your Intro to Causal Inference lecture just dropped
The comparison is literally the first sentence of your Results section.
Thanks, but this strikes me as a very odd and unhelpful definition of “garbage”. If anything, I think one of the things that have hampered progress in psychology is an obsession with “theoretical progress” before establishing any robust phenomena that make mature theories possible in the first place
Looks like Study 1E is on executives, N = 44, all others on regular Prolific participants or students. IMO quite misleading to sell this as N=6.4K evidence on “decision makers”. Study 1E asks executives if they’d spend an unspecified (!) amount on sponsored ads on Yelp, where the prior on a causal >
It also reminded me of the “stats maven” concept coined by @sanjaysrivastava.com some very long time ago, I believe here? thehardestscience.com/2014/12/04/s...
And for my long-held theory, though I admit that this perhaps sounds more cynical than it should (i.e., it happens for benign reasons too and reviewer intuitions can be good/correct even when they’re hard to articulate)
“Make it rewarding”: Is there a repository out there that gives you easy access to download and traffic figures? Seems like a no-brainer for encouraging data & code sharing (and high-quality documentation!), yet the OSF’s options for this seem quite limited unfortunately
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
To the extent that ChatGPT lets you do stuff faster and turn off your laptop earlier, it looks like it might as well help _save_ energy…
Ah yes, why would open-science ppl be involved with a new journal that’s trying to turn the tide and set new standards re transparency and bias protection in its field, with an EiC (@dangerwhale.bsky.social) who’s been lobbying for RRs and protocol publication for years? It must be the industry $$$
The first Swiss edition of Perspectives on Scientific Error kicking off very Swissly indeed #PSE7
I recently learned that Danny Kahneman revolutionised the hiring process of the Israelian army with an improvised personality questionnaire when he was 20 #justKahnemanthings www.moneycontrol.com/news/busines...
Greenberg (2009) is one of my favourite papers, showing “conversion of hypothesis to fact through citation alone” and jarring citation bias in grant proposals. Just struck me that it’s about a literature on beta amyloid—not in Alzheimer’s, but maybe still affected by the awfulness of that research?
Turns out that this conflict/confusion goes back at least as far as Humboldt, who insisted that both the factual and the imagination are crucial for creating scientific knowledge, while others struggled with feeling their imagination threatened by the factual part.
This is how we explained it in our primer for psychologists doi.org/10.1177/2515...
Haven’t read the article but I’m a fan of this research line. Very thoughtfully and carefully done, IMO exemplary for how psych research should proceed. They have a nice webpage kamamutalab.org We used it as an example in this paper journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
Got a print of Alexander von Humboldt’s Geography of Equinoxial Plants from my partner (he’s reading @andreawulf.bsky.social’s Invention of Nature and caused a massive Humboldt craze in our household). It’s so beautiful! Look at all those details! It’s actually all legible (if you can read German..)