Thread by @westwoodsam1

I am embarking on my own #PaperPerDayChallenge where I read at least one paper, well, per day for a whole year. To kick start, nature.com/articles/43573… inspired by @ukrepro Reproducibility Workshop @CumberlandLodge and a talk by @MarcusMunafo

Paper #2: Hard not be cynical about advocates of reproducibile science given most have careers built on the very questionable practices they wish to stamp out, so great to see @russpoldrack tackling this head on and offering great advice along the way 👍 ac.els-cdn.com/S0896627318310…

Paper #3 - false positives from multiple testing in anovas and importance of distinguishing exploratory and confirmatory hypotheses — also I thought anovas corrected for Multiple testing and this paper shows so too do many others, I’m not the only idiot! link.springer.com/content/pdf/10…

Paper #4 - thanks @Sam_D_Parsons for providing me with a great paper on rectifying past bad/questionable science practices

Paper #5 - want to apply #Bayes to my discipline, nice quick and easy to follow demonstrate of Bayes ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

Paper #6 - enjoying going over my notes from the Reproducibility Workshop, with this paper being at the top of my ‘Papers to fully understand’ list by @lakens @AlxEtz @ukrepro #ekrepro19

Paper #7 - few papers stand a second viewing let alone a third, forth or fifth. This is a great example of putting to task brain stimulation studies with wit by @vinwalsh (I make a point of rereading each year) ac.els-cdn.com/S0896627315006…

Paper #8 - always gives me impetus to refine the craft of writing when a tired topic is resuscitated by original arguments knitted together by prose that address like you’re having a conversation with the writer. @katiecorker does this here psyarxiv.com/6gcnm/

Paper #9 - I love being rewarded for reading outside my domain of interest (especially when the paper comes from a university in the Black Country!). A nuanced and considered piece on gender differentials in science by @mikethelwall which will no doubt stir a productive dialogue

Paper #10 - Great paper that arms us with a word to help identify and to call people out: paltering, using the truth to mislead. Perhaps many if not all authors are guilty of this at some stage of their career? Thanks @Todd_Rogers_ scholar.harvard.edu/files/todd_rog…

Paper #11 - thank you @paul_f_oreilly for a great talk on multiple testing and a brilliant lay summary of Bayes, but thank you especially for pointing out this paper by @david_colquhoun about the misinterpration of p-values. Fantastic find! royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.109…

Paper #12 - when isolated in a small lab, papers like this are a lifeline. Buried by inexplicable null effects and a thesis to write, this paper more than any other made sense of my work and started my journey into pushing for open science reforms. Thanks @ButtonKate

Paper #13 - great insight into the growing pains of reproducibility in animal research rendered into dazzling prose by @DanielJDrucker plus great reform ideas (eg the reproducibilty index!). Might interest you @KaitlynHair_ @Nadia_Soliman_ cell.com/cell-metabolis…

Paper #14 - so frustrating to have only just now come across this beautiful contribution toward rigorous and reproducible science. Thank you @CFCamerer @BrianNosek @EJWagenmakers et al joachimvosgerau.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/camere…

Paper #15 - by god do these old papers use language like a boss. Touches on @lakens pragamatic concession: p-values are ineradicable citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downlo… by Bakan 1966

Paper #16 - interesting paper but held back by heterogeneous studies, inexplicable effects and (given small n) most likely small study effects (eg Bose and Palm have massive effects) sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

Paper #17 - thank you @Neuro_Skeptic for tweeting this paper, stirred a lot of discussion at the journal club on mind wandering! journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…

Paper #18 - ashamed I viewed equivalence tests as yet another onerous learning curve like Bayes, but you learn so much about limits to null hypothesis testing plus it’s VERY intuitive and practical! Thanks @lakens @annemscheel @peder_isager journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…

Paper #19 - Alexander Bird discusses the unappreciated contribution of the base rate to the replication crisis. A failed replication may not mean what you think it means academic.oup.com/bjps/advance-a…

Paper #20 - riveting breakdown of post doc pay with reference to working hours, region of work and gender in Europe. The most striking finding for me is that working in your home country really does matter @ding_he biorxiv.org/content/early/…

Paper #21 - yet another paper throwing shade on sham #tDCS @GemNeuropsych psyarxiv.com/8ur6c/

Paper #22 - the journal club decided to revisit this paper. Papers by @TheNewStats - as well as being sound - are striking because they bring hard, unwieldy, far reaching problems to heel with cut glass prose and humour #statsporn journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…

Paper #23 - how I would have loved to have had this chapter when I started out researching brain stimulation and #tDCS. Lays it all out in plain English! link.springer.com/chapter/10.100…

Paper #24 - this is not just a timely but also revealing paper in the pitfalls and biases that are a silent epidemic in science (hopefully silent not for long!). Again a great yard stick of quality to reach to by @BrianNosek @OSFramework journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…

Paper #25 - this is a wonderfully considered commentary, and a great example of how to deal with the growing pains #tDCS is going through. Just great work done well, nice one @ZsoltTuri @thias_mittner and thanks @camillalnord for tweeting this commentary! frontiersin.org/articles/10.33…

Paper #26 - we‘re parched of candid papers that point to the hits early career researchers have to take to follow #OpenScience reforms, while calling upon senior academics to suppprt ECRs. A great contribution by @neuroccino and Christopher Allen. Thanks! psyarxiv.com/3czyt/?fbclid=…

Paper #27 - thanks @RogueResol Advanced Applications of tES workshop for introducing me to this great example of how strive for a more nuanced explanatory framework of tDCS effects. Thanks @BestmannLab @jbonaiuto @ArchydeB doi.org/10.7554/eLife.…

Paper #28 - this is a hilarious satire that laughs loudly and clearly at the emperor wearing no clothes, in this case the overwhelming number of published studies that confirm hypotheses with a staggering hit rate! Thanks @arinabones journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…

Paper #29 - just love papers that lift up the bonnet to how frighteningly easy it is and how enthusiastically promiscuous researchers are in torturing a significant result from their data. This is a perfect of example #OpenScience sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

Paper #30 - @Neuro_Skeptic humorous and uncomfortably accurate take on what scientists get up to in their labs

Paper #31 - a brilliantly concise, cogent and accessible paper that splashes cold water on psychological scientists but also scientists of other fields. Great slide making material too! Thanks @BrianNosek @OSFramework files.osf.io/v1/resources/w…

Paper #32 - a fantastically executed and brilliantly written paper giving you a blow by blow summary of how screwed we are as post docs 👏 @david_van_dijk you can even forecast your career chances here pipredictor.com
cell.com/action/showPdf…

Paper #33 - annoying paper that does nothing to stop the tap tap tapping of keyboards in lectures! But seriously, a great paper and gorgeous violin plots 😍 thanks @HeatherUrry psyarxiv.com/vqyw6/

Paper #34 - A rare paper that clarifies questions with no immediate answers and one that tackles tricky topics head on instead of obfuscating. Sad this paper is still relevant in #tDCS #TMS today after 4 years! thanks @BestmannLab @ArchydeB @jbonaiuto cell.com/action/showPdf…

Paper #35 - @psmaldino @rlmcelreath must be so proud of this paper. Still makes for a compelling argument to return to first principals and to do what you can to reintroduce rigour into research. The title of the paper is genius too! royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.109…

Paper #36 - “open science is a continuum of practices”. All too often ECRs are dissuaded to take up open science reforms because they are too onerous or simply not feasible. Great paper that shows real understanding of what ECRs face. Thanks @emckiernan13 cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/16800…

Paper #37 - really useful paper for anyone who wants to change the software of the lab, which may feel like turning an oil tanker around, but may be the best thing you ever did! Thanks @Wessel_Lab @ChrisFiloG! cell.com/action/consume…

Paper #38 - considered and timely proposal for the revision of current publishing system. Very interesting by @bodorama and Erin O’Shea. Contributes to the ongoing discussion with @MarcusMunafo @peanutbuttner @etklapwijk journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ar…

Paper #39 - such an important and potent metaphor for our often whimsical stats choices that avoids loaded terms like fishing or p hacking or data mining, which is often not the case, especially for ECRs. Thx! @StatModeling stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/resear…

Paper #40 - how to implement #OpenScience reforms in qualitative research is an increasingly intolerable itch to people - especially those using mixed methods. This paper is therefore a very welcome contribution. Thanks @leonievangroote tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.108…

Paper #41 - my reading list would not be complete without this watershed paper that combines beautiful figures and serious, considered discussion to the implications of their results @OSFramework @BrianNosek

Paper #42 - and it is incumbent upon me to include in this list the inevitable exchange of blows that followed the #OSC @BrianNosek. A reminder that science is an inescapable tussle for the truth. Thanks @DanTGilbert @kinggary @pettigrew_stats science.sciencemag.org/content/351/62…

Paper #43 - and to finish, a return serve by (among others!) @BrianNosek @MarcusMunafo @OSFramework #OpenScience science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/35…

Paper #44 - remarkable the 60th anniversary of this paper is next month. It’s been a prolonged campaign, but the rewards are now being reaped - so far... #OpenScience @OSFramework jstor.org/stable/pdf/228…

Paper #45 - lucid and engaging article taking a poleax to the sacrosanct sample size n = 30. Thanks @CChakrapani chuckchakrapani.com/articles/pdf/0…

Paper #46 - the fear of making an error is a haunting fear that knows no rest, but @deevybee has the very tonic we need. A wonderful paper, one that I know I will be revisit again and again. Thanks also @ReproducibiliT for the podcast on this! journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/25…

Paper #47 - fascinating paper that points to the near enough unspoken problem with peripheral co-stimulation during non-invasive brain stimulation #tDCS

Paper #48 - a sobering reminder that the public - *who actually find us remember!* - have very literal tolerance for wishy washy scientific results. And they’re right to! Thanks @WingenTobias @JanaBerkessel osf.io/4ukq5/

Paper #49 - responder analysis is used across a broad range of fields, and is intruding false positives where it shouldn’t belong - especially in intervention studies. Great example of this in tDCS by @DrMichaelJGrey #tDCS ac.els-cdn.com/S1935861X18304…

Paper #50 - great thing about the #brainstimconf is that you come across great review papers like this one! The idea of functional targeting is an intriguing way to optimise #BrainStimulation #tDCS #TMS effects in psychiatry ac.els-cdn.com/S0278584618302…

Paper #51 - damaging effects (on career and mental health) of public shaming or embarrassment is a very real and visceral one (see @jonronson) yet it’s hitherto ignored in science (but see @deevybee). Great encouragement from @LHuntNeuro to data share! nature.com/articles/s4156…

Paper #52 - neuroadaptive Bayesian optimisation looks set to be the thing that outmodes conventional fMRI studies. No doubt because it has Bayes in the name it will be impenetrable complicated... @romy_lorenz is someone to lookout for, wonderfully clear and easy to read paper

Paper #53 - starting down the ‘are replications important?’ rabbit hole with this piece which has come to be the whetstone on which pro replication people sharpen their arguments jasonmitchell.fas.harvard.edu/Papers/Mitchel…

Paper #54 - very helpfully concise intro to the problems research and researchers still face, including the woeful lack of stats expertise that’s letting us all down. Thanks @ButtonKate ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

Paper #55 - attention is almost always fixed on doing the replication rather than being the cordial, thoughtful and just replicator possible. Great commentary by Daniel Kahneman

Paper #56 - this is the-go-to article that marshals all the points and lays out clearly why the current journal structure is doomed. The End of Journals by @hmkyale ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.116…

Paper #57 - this paper made me mad with envy that I’m not going to @improvingpsych #SIPS but really excited that #openscience initiatives are making inroads into my area, clinical psychology. Thanks! @kathleenwade @katiecorker @JnfrLTackett psyarxiv.com/46rk5/

Paper #58 - when I grow up I want to write a paper as immaculately and lucidly written as this. A much needed tool in exposing the silent epidemic: the lack of basic statistical understanding. Thanks Jonathan Sterne @mendel_random bmj.com/content/bmj/32…

Paper #59 - great (and not easy at all) achievement combing #PET with #tDCS to investigate effects on dopamine release. Thanks @Clara_Fonteneau academic.oup.com/cercor/article…

Paper #60 - great to see an attempt like this to raise the standard of meta analyses in an especially unwieldy and ever expanding research area like neuroscience. Thanks @INM7_ISN ac.els-cdn.com/S0149763417303…

Paper #61 - ever do things to wind yourself up on purpose, just for the sake of it? If yes, read this paper reporting the questionable research practices researchers indulge in. Thank you @lesliekjohn et al! journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…

Paper #62 - great demo in how to dismantle a theory while giving you a refresher in Karl Popper's teachings. Challenges to Ego-Depletion Research Go beyond the Replication Crisis: A Need for Tackling the Conceptual Crisis, by John H. Lurquin & Akira Miyake frontiersin.org/article/10.338…

Paper #63 - insightful exchange on the relevance of replication in psychology frontiersin.org/articles/10.33… (1/2)

Paper #64 - and the commentary to paper 63. I wish there were more commentaries like this in circulation! Thanks @Heinonmatti @EikoFried @eplebel frontiersin.org/articles/10.33…

Paper #65 - @GernsbacherLAB writes a snappy and very persuasive article on Three ways to make replication mainstream. I especially love the reciprocal and didactic replication ideas! #openscience #makereplicationmainstream psyarxiv.com/x734c/

Paper #66 - a good effort at comparing the quality of reporting in preprints versus peer reviewed papers. More work needs to be done on this! biorxiv.org/content/10.110…

Paper #67 - if you want to disabuse someone of the belief that the current peer review structure is ok, give them this paper. Inviting peer-review from researchers gaming the system is particularly insidious onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11… #openscience

#68 - misleading information about job prospects, brittle responses to economic fluctuations mixed with a surplus low demand problem means PI/universities really have a captive audience when it comes to ECRs. Superb piece by Paula Stephan! academic.oup.com/bioscience/art…

#69 - this paper adds to my skepticism that fraud/misconduct is limited to a small, single-digit percentage of researchers. We're all human, and we all have a mortgage to pay. Still, shocking that impact factor and retraction rates are pos. correlated! ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21825063

#70 - enjoyed this from Ferric Fang on getting your paper rejected, especially the line 'In my personal experience, specious criticism does not sting nearly as much as critiques that are right on target'. The priceless (albeit rare) value of peer review ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

#71 - only a ~45% reduction in citations a year post retracted RCTs, may be overestimated if controlling for media coverage. Authors keen to point out citations ignore how retracted papers may influence future study designs and policies... journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…

#72 - an even bleaker picture on retractions. Citations continue to be positive, and 'of the 1,112 articles included for analysis, 55% were retracted for some type of misconduct...up from the 40% found in Budd et al. (1999)'. surgery.med.uky.edu/sites/default/…

#73 - Jeffrey M Perkel: save 👏 and 👏 back 👏 up 👏 your 👏 data! I'm definitely loving the 3-2-1 idea and before saving something asking myself whether a file "brings me joy". Data and @MarieKondo in the same sentence, who'd have thunk it! nature.com/articles/d4158…

#74 - so pleasing to see @ukrepro alive to many of the needs of researchers reported in this rare marriage of open science and qualitative research. I share fears that laudable policies will be imposed by stakeholders with no space for revision ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P… @IP_policy

#75 - reported outcomes can be predicted just by an address... institutes publishing 'more papers per capita were significantly more likely to report positive results, independently of their discipline, methodology and research expenditure' ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

#76 - how to determine what is a successful replication? This paper is an important reminder of the problem of selection bias, a re-analysis of the large scale reproducibility project arxiv.org/pdf/1903.08747…

#77 - it's all kicking off again in the 'statistical significance' debate, take a look at this corking, pungent, fire-starting article by @vamrhein Sander Greenland Blake McShanehttps://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00857-9 (signatories here: nature.com/magazine-asset…)

#78 - with return fire from John P. A. Ioannidis, and calls for nuance and moderation from Valen E. Johnson (@TAMU) @EJWagenmakers nature.com/magazine-asset…

#79 - and yet more fire from John P. A. Ioannidis jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…

#80 - the above commentaries cite a recent recrudescence of the debate, this time in the form of redefining statistical significance. I include them here for context nature.com/articles/s4156…

#81- this prompted a commentary to Justify the Alpha, rather than lowering the alpha level to an equally (and perhaps even more unhelpful) arbitrary level @lakens @RolfZwaan @Sam_D_Parsons nature.com/articles/s4156…

#82 - plus John P. A. Ioannidis and his two pennies worth jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…

#83 - The practical alternative to the p-value is the correctly used p-value psyarxiv.com/shm8v via @OSFramework a must read by @lakens

#84 high-powered replication fails to find evidence that confronting how policies can implemented moderates political views. Replication of Fernbach, Rogers, Fox, & Sloman (2013) psyarxiv.com/yn64p/ via @OSFramework cool paper by @jarretcrawford

#85 FINALLY IT’S HERE. A much needed alternative to Bem’s go-to article on academic writing. Writing empirical articles: Transparency, reproducibility, clarity, and memorability psyarxiv.com/c97za/ via @OSFramework thank you so much @GernsbacherLAB

#86 'The statistical significance of meta-analyses often depend on the outcome of a few patients'. Nice work Ignacio Atal, Raphaël Porcher, Isabelle Boutron, Philippe Ravaud! @JClinEpi @cochranemthds @cochranecollab sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

#87 this was an absolute joy to read, especially the measured tone, which is not a common feature of critiques of Bem. The ending is such a neat finish too. Please read this paper by @StuartJRitchie @RichardWiseman and Christopher C French journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…

#88 refreshing my memory of @markowetzlab talk at the Repro Workshop in Jan. The bandwidth problem prevents the uptake of OS practices in most cases so we need more papers like! Five selfish reasons to work reproducibly genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11… #

#89 Moin Syed here with a great whistle stop tour of Open Science past, present and future. He even tackles the slippery meaning of Open Science too! Also great that it’s basically a transcript of his lecture, reads like an open letter @syeducation psyarxiv.com/cteyb

#90 - 'Abandoning statistical significance is both sensible and practical' a response to Ioannidis' second response to the original article 'Retire statistical significance' peerj.com/preprints/2765…

#91 someone asked me the other day 'what article do you try to cite whenever you can because it needs more attention?' Always (and possibly forever given the state of the tDCS literature) will be this one by @vinwalsh brainstimjrnl.com/article/S1935-…

#92 it’s usually a Herculean effort to get through a paper with any equations or formulae but this is a dream. Helped me so much in my PhD! Consult this paper before doing a meta-analysis, especially for calculating within-subject effects frontiersin.org/article/10.338… @lakens

#93 I vacillate on the value of anonymity. It’s cloak and dagger in peer review but can focus attention on what is being said away from who is saying it and protect early careers (eg David v Goliath). Would we have the Student’s t-test? @Neuro_Skeptic sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

#94 there’s the other side of anonymity of course which should be considered link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s…

#95 really enjoyable 5minute read on ways to improve your data visualization Thanks @NPRougier @pebourne. Thanks for bringing this to my attention @DominikBuschma1 journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/a…

#96 Love the punchy title, you can hear the 👏 between each word. Pathetic how the reviewers/editors operated in this case, and can’t believe this is normative! interesting proposal to deal with these kind of gatekeeper journals psyarxiv.com/5q9ma/

#97 how double-dipping became normative is scandalous! Thanks @Chris_I_Baker and colleagues! nature.com/articles/nn.23…

#98 @ButtonKate updates us on the progress we have made in the decade since the above article on double dipping was published. There's been progress, but not nearly enough! nature.com/articles/s4159…

@ButtonKate #99 a #tDCS paper with #bayes and #preregistration is something that is still too rare! @HannahFilmer1 @amayajfox @PaulEDux on tDCS and ToM
sciencedirect.com/science/articl… FYI @gemma_learmonth @ZsoltTuri blinding fails here too... authors discuss this, which is unusual for the field

@ButtonKate @HannahFilmer1 @amayajfox @PaulEDux @gemma_learmonth @ZsoltTuri #100 Harry Collins is a magician with words, and a much needed ally in open science onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.100…

@ButtonKate @HannahFilmer1 @amayajfox @PaulEDux @gemma_learmonth @ZsoltTuri #101 @deevybee in a wonderfully witty and (as ever) brilliantly written piece that gets to the heart of the matter. Let's rein in those four horsemen! ✊nature.com/magazine-asset…

@ButtonKate @HannahFilmer1 @amayajfox @PaulEDux @gemma_learmonth @ZsoltTuri @deevybee #102 @GernsbacherLAB on how to incentivise and reward reproducible research. In short, place a premium on open science practices in hiring and promotion criteria. YES!

@ButtonKate @HannahFilmer1 @amayajfox @PaulEDux @gemma_learmonth @ZsoltTuri @deevybee @GernsbacherLAB #103 shameful that this finding is so mundane, 'Excess significance bias in rTMS studies for neuropsychiatric disorders'. Great work by @NaudetFlorian et al. biorxiv.org/content/10.110…

@ButtonKate @HannahFilmer1 @amayajfox @PaulEDux @gemma_learmonth @ZsoltTuri @deevybee @GernsbacherLAB @NaudetFlorian #104 large survey again showing open science practices are perceived costly, a glass ceiling that needs smashing! Paging @BrianNosek @ukrepro. Gr8 work @MattMotyl @anwashburn @belyseh @LindaSkitka @jyprims @ZJMelton @TCarsel @AllisonBMueller doi.org/10.1177/251524…

#105 meta-analysis of 492 studies aiming to change implicit biases show single sessions was not enough to change overt behaviour! Great work by @CalvinKLai @psforscher, @jordanaxt, @CharlieEbersole @BrianNosek. psyarxiv.com/dv8tu/. **see thread!**

https://twitter.com/calvinklai/status/1127958418113875969?s=21

#106 Yes, yes, yes to this idea! Interesting application of Bayes to home in on what studies to replicate, cutting down on waste. ‘When and Why to Replicate: As Easy as 1, 2, 3?’ psyarxiv.com/h7js8/ great work @SMirandaField @RinkHoekstra @DonVanRaven

#107 - "I argue that the focus on OA makes us miss the bigger problem: today’s scholarly communications is unaffordable with today’s budgets”. Oosh, yes mate! @TobyABGreen onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10…

#108 - "One result of increased pressure is that papers are assigned to reviewers who are not experts in the area”. This is more true now than ever! Nice short summary of the problem by @Brainclinics

#109 prepare to spit out whatever you’re drinking. An enviable paper on ghost writing, please read! Congrats on this valuable contribution to changing toxic research culture! @BiophysicalFrog, John Knutsen, June Graham, @sarahoelker, Rebeccah S. Lijek biorxiv.org/content/10.110…

#110 essential reading for anyone designing a brain stim experiment, plus a much needed addition to the ongoing conversation about sham stim, blinding and reproducibility. Thanks! @Clara_Fonteneau @MaromBikson @Brainclinics and more neuralengr.org/wp-content/upl…

#111 illuminating paper on the continuity between preregistered protocols and final article, plus a very ambiguous recommendation too, ‘disclose or die'! Thanks @wolfvanpaemel and more. psyarxiv.com/d8wex/ Summary here courtesy of @EikoFried

https://twitter.com/EikoFried/status/1128229323251617794

#112 I sometimes wonder if the next ‘replication crisis’ style big splash in science will be a report on the scope and scale of bullying in science. IMO its rife. @HollyElse writes an important piece on this: Does science have a bullying problem?nature.com/articles/d4158…

#113 returning to this challenge after being waylaid by grants, data collection, ill health, papers and so on. What better way to return than with this beauty sticerd.lse.ac.uk/seminarpapers/…. @TheNewStats. To learn more, listen to the dazzlingly talented @OrbenAmy

https://twitter.com/hertzpodcast/status/1130898630976724994

#114 I feel like I have been red pilled after reading this. Never heard of the crud factor (i.e. “everything correlates with everything”) which has now been more narrowly defined by @OrbenAmy @lakens in an easy to read and highly engaging paper! psyarxiv.com/96dpy

#115 ‘The difference in aggressive behavior...(d = 1.92) is larger than the difference between the average height of men and women (d = 1.85).’ A well crafted commentary on the implausibly large effect that video games lead to aggression @JoeHilgard journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…

#116 papers like this make me think publication metrics were just an elaborate bet between publishers to see if universities and researches would actually buy into them... a fire starting paper by Michael Fire (pun unintentional) &
@guestrin doi.org/10.1093/gigasc…

#117 'Some researchers have now attempted to combine working memory training with other cognitive enhancement techniques, such as tDCS, in a kitchen-sink approach...'. Haha, guilty! Great overview of the hype cycle of working memory training doi.org/10.1177/096372…

#118 ‘In 2018, Elsevier’s revenue grew by 2 percent, to a total of $3.2 billion.’ That a company would stymie knowledge just to turn a profit is nauseating and insufferable, at best. Cracking read by Vox vox.com/the-highlight/…

#119 I know I'm late to the party on this but Jesus! Pre-registration just tears up (inflated) effect sizes like a boss. frontiersin.org/articles/10.33…

#120 very interesting paper by @LeoTiokhin @siminevazire @lakens @KevinZollman @lakens on signalling honesty in academic publishing. A nod to John Lennon’s Imagine is a great start to any paper! files.osf.io/v1/resources/g…

#121 I think about this article often. I wonder how many ideas, criticisms, projects, whatever, have been stolen in peer review? “Dear peer reviewer, you stole my paper: An author's worst nightmare” retractionwatch.com/2016/12/12/dea… via @ivanoransky

#122 huge study finds ‘the youngest children in a classroom to be at increased risk of being diagnosed with and medicated for ADHD’ 😮 @AllenFrancesMD @Martin_Whitely onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jc…

#123 pretty good consolidation of ethical concerns of using non invasive brain stimulation in ADHD children. Wished the quality of studies were in line with this attitude, with an emphasis on rigour and possible cost rather than boosting publication output frontiersin.org/articles/10.33…

#124 food for thought from @deevybee & @stat_PT on the misleading effects of ghost and correlated variables on p-curve analyses, and on the limits of text-mined p-values doi.org/10.7717/peerj.… @peanutbuttner you might find this interesting

#125 the constantly turning mangle of open science spits out another shocking statistic! 'How a Single Paper Affects the Impact Factor: Implications for Scholarly Publishing' by Manolis Antonoyiannakis arxiv.org/pdf/1906.02660…

#126 great application of a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of ADHD medication. Nice work by @CorteseSamuele
@NicolettaAdamo and co thelancet.com/journals/lanps…

#127 ‘[one] unintended consequence is that women can be penalized by the programmes designed to help them’, an eye opening piece by Charikleia Tzanakou nature.com/articles/d4158…

#128 In a well executed @nature piece on declaring conflicts of interest, @TomChivers draws much needed attention to an uncomfortable truth. Great investigative journalism, with quotes from @sapinker @JonHaidt @syeducation. TL;DR if in doubt, declare COIs! nature.com/articles/d4158…

#129 ‘We found that most definitions and explanations of statistical significance in introduction-to-psychology textbooks contained common fallacies” 🤦🏼‍♂️ journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…

#130 Loving the snark Ioannidis and Thombs bring down on Journal Impact Factors. ‘A user’s guide to inflated and manipulated impact factors’ onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.111…

#131 more from Ioannidis, this time on the heated debate of what constitutes a ‘replication’, focusing on the relatively recent Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology of @BrianNosek and colleagues

#132 🚨A Consortium-Based Approach to the Empirical Dissertation🚨Pool resources, address replication crises, and publish/learn way more valuable skills at the end! Amazing proposal by @ButtonKate @chrisdc77 @MarcusMunafo. Please RT @ukrepro @UniversitiesUK @UKRIO @Kingspsychol

#133 funny take, ‘The Invited review - or, my field, from my standpoint, written by me using only my data and my ideas, and citing only my publications’. But really taken by the idea of reviewing areas outside your area of research 🤔

#134 nice paper applying latent variable analysis for inhibitory control tasks. The findings put me in mind of the #crudfactor. Interesting work by @gaertner_anne and Alexander Strobel psyarxiv.com/gnhmt/

#135 should we be more concerned about how we communicate scientific misconduct? Nice conversation starter, ‘Science Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry? Apologies for Scientific Misconduct' by Felicitas Hesselmann & Martin Reinhart journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…

#136 I’m no imaging expert and this is a small study, but very interesting idea. Wonder what @CorteseSamuele @INM7_ISN think? BOLD differences normally attributed to inhibitory control predict symptoms, not task-directed inhibitory control in ADHD biorxiv.org/content/biorxi…

#137 thinking of drawing up a Research Data Management plan? I would start here uc3.cdlib.org/maturity-model/ cc: @_ChrisAlbertyn @KingsLibraries

#138 ‘many textbooks claim that effect sizes should be interpreted as a simple measure of the practical real‐world importance of a result despite the fact that ESs are profoundly influenced by features of design and analysis strategy’ onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…

#139 you never get a feel for a research topic unless you do a ‘manual’ systematic lit review and meta-analysis. Anomalies, slight of hand and paltering work their way to the surface. But automatisation is inevitable & has value given the labour needed …maticreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1…

#140 a great paper, by a great force for good in the rigorous and open research movement @Protohedgehog, published in a great journal @F1000Research. ‘The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review’ @KingsLibraries f1000research.com/articles/5-632

#141 hopefully this will start a conversation on the non-standard instructions and information given to participants in brain stimulation studies and how it might effect the outcome. But I bet it won’t sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

#142 this will definitely inform the MSc Neuroscience module I lead on. Sound advice on how to teach good research practices by Alexandra Sarafoglou, Suzanne Hoogeveen
@dora_matzke @EJWagenmakers. With lecture content provided by @chrisdc77, @blhoutkoop and @richarddmorey 🤩😍

#143 so wonderful to wake up to this, 2 Registered Reports published by a Nature journal! 🚨A FIRST🚨 and with contradictory findings! @RegReports @KoustaStavroula @marike_cogneuro for details see @chrisdc77 thread:

https://twitter.com/chrisdc77/status/1153379148452286464?s=21

#144 one of biggest barriers for open data sharing in psychiatry is anonymisation. Break this barrier and open science can make progress in places where it really matters journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…

#145 as homework for the last @riotscienceclub until Autumn, I read this wonderful paper by @RobertPlomin et al. Top 10 Replicated Findings From Behavioral Genetics journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…

#146 @deevybee spilling the tea!

A call for funders to ban institutions that use grant capture targets blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocial…

#147 Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? By @russpoldrack Still relevant today despite this paper being published over a decade ago 🙄 ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16406760

#148 I didn’t appreciate dependency between effects sizes until I did a MA. Learn about them the easy way with this by @mikewlcheung ‘A Guide to Conducting a Meta-Analysis with Non-Independent Effect Sizes’ psyarxiv.com/5p7dj/

#149 I don’t think there’s an academic I’ve met who hasn’t been the victim of or who hasn’t witnessed someone else being bullied by a another (usually senior) academic. The brain drain resulting from burnout/breakdown really must stop. Great stuff @wellcometrust @Ben_Bleasdale

#150 more important insights into the scope of academic bullying, and helpful strategies. In my exp, the perpetrators of the most egregious examples of bullying or harassment somehow get on committees designed to stop bullying and harassment! comm.wayne.edu/files/keashly_…

#151 Fascinating article! All mental disorders are brain disorders … not. eiko-fried.com/all-mental-dis… via @EikoFried

#152 Improving functional magnetic resonance imaging reproducibility by @CyrilRPernet @jbpoline academic.oup.com/gigascience/ar…

#153 We must guard against supplying leaps of imagination with wings, but rather hang it with weights, to keep it from leaping and flying, to paraphrase Bacon @EJWagenmakers Gilles Dutilh, @a_sarafoglou ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

#154 finally got round to this! P-curving the fusiform face area: Meta-analyses support the expertise hypothesis statsmaths.github.io/pdf/2019-p-cur…

#155 gripping read! Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment psyarxiv.com/mjhnp/ via @OSFramework

#156 Is It Time to Ban the P Value by Helena Chmura Kraemer is on my list because it’s a nice 2-page overview of issues with p-values, and because it was published in JAMA! jamanetwork.com/journals/jamap…

#157 “It is important to reinforce the importance of …”: ‘Hype’ in reports of randomized controlled trials... yeah 👏but 👏how 👏are 👏we 👏gonna 👏get 👏tenure👏if 👏we👏don’t 👏 hype sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

#158 ‘Researchers need guidance on how to handle published work whose ethics have been questioned’. Unethical work must be filtered out or flagged by Graeme D. Ruxton & Tom Mulder. Puts me in mind of the recent tweet by @INM7_ISN

https://twitter.com/inm7_isn/status/1156887808512004101?s=21

#159 Head motion: the dirty little secret of neuroimaging in psychiatry🔥🔥🔥 @carolinamak15 Martin Lepage Alan C. Evans, jpn.ca/wp-content/upl…

#160 ‘When so many email addresses on journal articles don’t work, we have a problem’ natureindex.com/news-blog/one-…

#161 the hours needed to extract stimulation protocols from tDCS studies for reviews and meta-analysis is absolutely eye watering. This open database is a major gain! Thanks @ZsoltTuri @MaromBikson and co biorxiv.org/content/10.110…

#162 **Repeating experiments is not enough** ‘Verifying results requires disparate lines of evidence — a technique called triangulation’ by @MarcusMunafo @mendel_random

#163 ‘Preregistration is a plan, not a prison (DeHaven, 2017)’

Preregistration Is Hard, And Worthwhile psyarxiv.com/wu3vs

Solid and reassuring advice from @BrianNosek @EmorieBeck @LorneJCampbell @JkayFlake @Tom_Hardwicke @EvoMellor Anna van 't Veer @siminevazire

#164 self-citation and journal prestige explain a good deal of gender variations in citation
distributions in medicine 🤯 doi.org/10.7554/eLife.…

@ipoga Schneider @reshmajagsi Nielsen

#165 ‘Some highly cited academics seem to be heavy self-promoters — but researchers warn against policing self-citation’

nature.com/articles/d4158…

#166 background reading 👆 journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ar…

#167 Without #reviewer2 feedback I would never have found these fascinating papers by @abcdlabReading @TheHandLab. #silverlining

Annoying TMS scalp discomfort can in part explain changes in RTs on commonly used tasks, and is dependent on scalp location

doi.org/10.1016/j.jneu…

#168 another slice to this 👆 by @abcdlabReading @TheHandLab doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.…

#169 ‘Why I said no to peer review this summer’. Don’t be afraid to join @JennyRohn in practicing her sound advice!

(I say knowing I’m working this bank holiday weekend)

#170 The Publications Arms Race psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-p… via @psychscience

#171 Bayesian alternatives for NHST: A non-technical guide using @JASPStats bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11… apply Bayesian stats via correlations, t-tests, ANCOVAs, and ANOVAs. Get the tutorial data here osf.io/emz4r/ thanks @dsquintana @wdonald_1985

#172 Uncondition the fear of getting lost in the garden of forking paths in human fear conditioning research! psyarxiv.com/6m72g/ @tinalonsdorf @Sjouwerman_R @m_artuz @The_CogPsy_Lab @TomRBeckers @G_Mertens @AnnaGerlicher @janhaaker @JentschValerie

#173 Advancing Transparency and Openness in Child Development Research: Opportunities psyarxiv.com/wbv2d/ via @OSFramework

Thanks @Gen_Pov Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda @mcxfrank

#174 Comparability of Randomised Groups by Douglas G. Altman.

Testing baseline differences between groups then using these to inform what covariates you use is a contentious debate in RCTs. This paper is a nice intro into the whole drama jstor.org/stable/2987510…

#175 Statistical Software Output in the Classroom: A Comparison of R and SPSS by Jacob B. Rode and Megan M. Ringel

Preliminary evidence that R is as easy to pick up as SPSS, *when reading outputs*. More research needed for difficultly in using R

journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…

#176 Curtailing the Use of Preregistration: A Misused Term journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…

Interesting argument by @DanielleBRice__ @dmoher

With a nice response from @chrisdc77:

https://twitter.com/chrisdc77/status/1168821396971167745?s=21

#177 ‘Replicating our work took four years and 100,000 worms (😱)but brought surprising discoveries, explain’

Great story of how dogged titervation over innovation led to robust methodology by Gordon
J. Lithgow, Monica Driscoll and Patrick Phillips.

#178 Old but gold:

Likelihood of Null Effects of Large NHLBI Clinical Trials Has Increased over Time

‘Prospective declaration of outcomes in RCTs, and the adoption of transparent reporting standards...may have contributed to... null findings’

journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…

#179 Siri, show me a ‘game changer’

Preprints are valid research outputs for REF2021 asapbio.org/preprints-vali…

@KingsLibraries @SGDPCentreKCL @KingsCollegeLon @KingsIoPPN

#180 making presentations on preprints is made soooo much easier with papers like this 👇

On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective

@SSarabipour @schwessinger @humbertodebat @edemmott

journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ar…

Nice thread here

https://twitter.com/benchpills/status/1169195901597999105?s=21

#181 Triangulating meta-analyses: the example of the serotonin transporter gene, stressful life events and major depression

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

Amy R Taylor @MarcusMunafo

#182 What next for Registered Reports? @chrisdc77 sets out how RRs are countering perverse incentives

There’s no silver bullet in #OpenScience to combat the #ReplicationCrisis but @RegReports come pretty damn close!

nature.com/magazine-asset…

#183 What bioRxiv’s first 30,000 preprints reveal about biologists nature.com/articles/d4158…

#184 the Marshmallow test is one of those things lay people ‘lean in’ to listen whenever I bring it up, now I can add this fascinating (and revealing) dialogue between Watts 2018 and Michaelson 2019 that would not be possible without #openscience (1/2)

journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…

#185 see this re-analysis of☝️null findings, ‘Same dataset, different conclusions...’ psyarxiv.com/9yj8p/ @lamichaelson Yuko Munakata

Wise words from @lakens, make sure to see the thread he retweets as there’s interesting points about the re-analysis!

https://twitter.com/lakens/status/1174400548923203589?s=21

#186 The Fall of Niels Birbaumer - Neuroskeptic bit.ly/2LEmjun

#187 Citation counts and journal impact factors do not capture research quality in the behavioral and brain sciences

psyarxiv.com/9g5wk/ via @OSFramework

by Michael Dougherty & Zachary Horne

#188 Data availability, reusability, and analytic reproducibility

Solid work written in clear prose by

@Tom_Hardwicke @GustavNilsonne @mcxfrank @ajhmohr @EricaJYoon @mhtessler @brialong and more

royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.109…

#189 ‘... Shaw and Porter’s subjects...simply accepted the suggestion, speculated about it, or conjured up mental images’ 🔥🔥

Brilliant critique of the (in)famous ‘false memory’ paper by Shaw and Porter. Fantastic work @kimawade @drlambchop Kathy Pezdek

https://twitter.com/drlambchop/status/1176227807103315968?s=21

#190 big love for @ReproducibiliT @OrbenAmy @Sam_D_Parsons @cruwelli helping in the #openscience cause one teapot at a time!

Wonderful achievement 👏

#191 Bayes Factors ‘... tell readers what to think leaving the justification in a black box under the rug’

’Default Bayes factors are legitimizing the fallacy that not-significant=> null is true’.

Enjoying the blog series on Bayes by @uri_sohn

datacolada.org/78c?subscribe=…

#192 jaw meet floor 😱

Great piece by @tebartl with mentions of the absolutely scurrilous ‘data thugs’ aka @jamesheathers @sTeamTraen 😜

The editor in chief of Criminology, David McDowall, sounds like a right bellend

chronicle.com/interactives/2…

#193 Test-retest reliability of task-based and resting-state fMRI

‘We find large variability in test-retest reliability perfor- mance across the different tb-fMRI paradigms and rs-fMRI metrics, ranging from poor to excellent’ 🤔😱

@DukartJuergen et al

journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…

#194 The importance of stupidity in scientific research by Martin A. Schwartz

Thanks @saltysifter for bringing this to my attention (idling through twitter has its uses!)

#195 Journals really are being replaced in a big way

Transparent review in preprints

cshl.edu/transparent-re…

#196 Great piece on simple ways to foster collaboration by @tracy_staedter

#197 it is “morally unacceptable” that postdocs are
unnamed on most grant applications even though 60% of UKRI’s funding goes to their salaries’!

Long overdue policy revision that aims to protect postdocs! #CONCORDAT

@mcallister_d @UniversitiesUK @IoPPN_postdocs

#198 Personality and fatal diseases: Revisiting a scientific scandal By Anthony J Pelosi

journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…

#199 Neurofeedback or neuroplacebo

Loving the work and writings of @rt_thibault and colleagues

#200 Examining the Reproducibility of Meta-Analyses in Psychology: A Preliminary Report

It’s an understatement to say this a hugely important paper by @lakens @katiecorker @farid_anvari @MALMvanAssen @FredHasselman
@page_gould @nicebread303 and co

files.osf.io/v1/resources/x…

#201 No publication without confirmation ✊

A straightforward, no nonsense solution in animal/ preclinical work to stop the unethical cost of resources and animal welfare is to confirm your results before you publish! Simple

Jeffery S Mobil @Maclomaclee

#202 Emerging challenges in pharmacotherapy research on
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder—outcome measures
beyond symptom control and clinical trials

@CorteseSamuele and others on behalf of the European ADHD Guidelines Group

dacemirror.sci-hub.tw/journal-articl…

#203 Sparky exchange about neurofeedback and placebo effects in ADHD (1 of 3)

Treating ADHD With Suggestion: Neurofeedback and Placebo Therapeutics

@rt_thibault @samuelveissiere Jay A Olson Amir Raz

#204 The Fallacy of Sham-Controlled Neurofeedback Trials: A Reply to Thibault and Colleagues (2018) (2 of 3)

Edmund Pigott, @rexcannonPhD, and Mark Trullinger

#205 EEG-Neurofeedback and the Correction of Misleading Information: A Reply to Pigott and Colleagues (3 of 3).

@rt_thibault @samuelveissiere, Jay A. Olson, and Amir Raz

#206 Training students for the Open Science future

Great call to equip students with the necessary skills to drive #openscience and help them through the period of upheaval that will follow

@nicebread303 link to materials on academic job offers here 👉 osf.io/7jbnt/

#207 Lesion Studies in Contemporary Neuroscience

Great paper by Vaidya, Pujara, Petrides, Murray, and Fellows

Wonderful to see #triangulation in neuroscience (with a nod to @MarcusMunafo @mendel_random!)

dacemirror.sci-hub.tw/journal-articl…

#208 Ten common statistical
mistakes to watch out for when
writing or reviewing a
manuscript

Tamar R Makin & Jean-Jacques Orban De Xivr

Great resource for students and academics of any stripe and level @KingsIoPPN @Kings_HSDTC @KCLDocStudies

elifesciences.org/articles/48175

#209 Starting down the measurement crisis rabbit hole, starting with this by Jessica Flake @EikoFried

Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable Measurement Practices and How to Avoid Them psyarxiv.com/hs7wm/

via @OSFramework

#210 Following on from above, this blog Measurement Schmeasurement

By @EikoFried also featuring work by @JkayFlake @mijkenijk @andrewang91 and Scott Lilienfeld

eiko-fried.com/measurement-sc…

#211 and finally - for now anyway! - this eyebrow raiser from @EikoFried

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

@EikoFried #212 What is the point of a university press?

Interesting article on the future of university presses, a discussion that will grow more and more intense with the prospect of ever unsustainable open access fees

timeshighereducation.com/features/what-…

#213 Promoting an open research culture

science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/34…

By (in no order, and among others) @talyarkoni @uri_sohn @EJWagenmakers @BrianNosek @stuartbuck1 @chrisdc77

#214 Rejection of rejection: a novel approach to overcoming barriers to publication

Top banter from Cath Chapman and Tim Slade 🤣

#215 IMHO - Citing without reading the paper thoroughly or misreading is a silent epidemic in research, a problem made worse by authors groping for some sort of narrative

Careless citations don't just spread scientific myths – they can make them stronger natureindex.com/news-blog/misc…

#216 ‘ECRs must take ownership and make open science... a clear commitment that is front and centre in their research’

Great stuff from Richard Ramsey, with acknowledgements to @AnnaHenschel @brain_on_dance

Advocating for the credibility revolution

psyarxiv.com/3kwnu/

#217 the rush toward secondary data analysis makes this article very timely!

Recommendations for Increasing the Transparency of Analysis of Preexisting Data Sets

Spot on recommendations by Sara J Weston @StuartJRitchie @dingding_peng @ShuhBillSkee

journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…

#218 Despite 31% of articles being OA, 52% of article views are to OA articles.

That’s a market share and a half! Also, nice to see the disruptive force of @biorxivpreprint

Great article by @researchremix @jasonpriem & Richard Orr

doi.org/10.1101/795310

#219 pre-reg is redundant, at best?

Ransacking data until statistical significance magnifies the negative impact of publication bias.

‘Our theories are not just being wagged by the tail of the distribution, but by the tail of the tail’

Thanks @chrisdc77 rediscovering this!

#220 in reference to the above ☝️

Preregistration is redundant, at best psyarxiv.com/x36pz/ via @OSFramework

Brief paper reinviting us to think again about whether we’re too distracted by statistics when we should be focused on theories

@IrisVanRooij @djnavarro and co

#221 Including open research practices in its promotion criteria allows @BristolUni to sign the Concordat, which will enhance the environment component of its submission to the Research Excellence Framework. There is a web of incentives
@MarcusMunafo researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-vie…

#222 Reimagining research culture

Great see @UofGlasgow leading the way in changing research culture by focusing on vital changes to incentive structures

@tanitacasci @researchdreams

blog.f1000.com/2019/11/01/rei…

#223 the hardest thing about the #paperperdaychallenge is that I have to stop myself from including every blog from @lakens

A refreshing take on The Value of Preregistration for Psychological Science: A Conceptual Analysis: daniellakens.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-va…

#224 Is it time to redefine the definition of research misconduct?

IMO - yes, we need a tightly worded definition focusing on questionable research practices that are standard practice but shouldn’t be dacemirror.sci-hub.tw/journal-articl…

#225 terse clapback from @psmaldino reminding us that theory must be placed front and centre in our research

#226 Papers need to include fewer claims and more proof to make the scientific literature more reliable

#227 Modulating brain activity and behaviour with tDCS: rumours of its death have been greatly exaggerated

@HannahFilmer1 Jason B Mittingley @PaulEDux

IMHO - I hope for more assiduous criticism of tES research, but I get the authors’ take

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

#228 Mapping the universe of registered reports

@Tom_Hardwicke and John P. A. Ioannidis

Refreshing review with constructive criticism of @RegReports, with calls for greater transparency on IPAs

twin.sci-hub.tw/7145/21cf4384c…

#229 Minimally Sufficient Research by Christopher Peterson

Less is more, so embrace simple statistical analysis over fancy complicated analysis. Your effect - if robust and analysed parsimoniously - will shine through

journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.111…

#230 ADHD diagnoses: are 116 200 permutations enough?

@CorteseSamuele and Luis Augusto Rohde

sci-hub.tw/downloads/2019…

#231 Replicability and replication in the humanities by @RikPeels

‘I spell out three reasons for thinking that replication in the humanities is not possible and argue that they are unconvincing’

Sadly rare arguments made from the humanities!

doi.org/10.1186/s41073…

#232 Why all randomised controlled trials produce biased results by Alexander Krauss

doi.org/10.1080/078538…

#233 Examination of CIs in health and medical journals: 1976 to 2019

Despite increasing use of CIs, many still focus on statistical significance.
Replacing p-values with CIs may not solve bright-line thinking...

Adrian Gerard Barnett @Jonathan_D_Wren

bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjope…

#234 Ten rules for succeeding in academia through upward toxicity by @irinibus

Universities preach meritocracy but, in reality, bend over backwards to protect toxic personalities

For all you ECRs out there who need feel good news on a Friday night 😉

timeshighereducation.com/opinion/ten-ru…

#235 What p-hacking really looks like: A comment on Masicampo and LaLande (2012) by @lakens

#236 Fast Lane to Slow Science @utafrith

🚨 When I was hired, I had proudly...one paper, and 10 years later I had...28 publications, none highly cited. I would have no chance today

A scientists reputation...will be built on their best publications and lessened by weaker ones

#237 The chaperone effect in scientific publishing

‘...chaperone effect...the ability to publish in certain venues is something that junior scientists learn from senior colleagues..’

@vedransekara @prdeville @robysinatra @suneman and others

pnas.org/content/pnas/1…

#238 Establishment of Best Practices for Evidence for Prediction
A Review

‘...conflation of statistical association and predictive accuracy is common [100 studies identified by searching ‘fMRI prediction’]

@russpoldrack Grace Huckins Gael Varoquaux

jamanetwork.com/journals/jamap…

#239 evaluating adherence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to PRISMA Guidlines

‘Many studies have evaluated how well SRs adhere to the PRISMA Statement, and the pooled result suggests reporting of many items is suboptimal.

@mjpages @dmoher

…maticreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1…

#240 Comment: Why Meta-Analyses Rarely Resolve Ideological Debates by Christopher J Ferguson

journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…

#241 The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses by John P A Ioannidis

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

#242 three papers for all you budding open research clinical psychology enthusiasts out there 😉 courtesy of @JnfrLTackett and colleagues

It’s Time to Broaden the Replicability Conversation: Thoughts for and From Clinical Psychological Science

journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…

#243 Leveraging the Open Science Framework in Clinical Psychological Assessment Research

files.osf.io/v1/resources/w…

#244 Psychology’s Replication Crisis and Clinical Psychological Science

annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.114…

#245 Journal editors, one and all, follow this example

Swan Song Editorial by
@dstephenlindsay 👏✊