Any useful resources on how to critically read a science paper? Something spicy/unconventional, like red flags to spot, "scratch and sniff" tests (eg statcheck), peer review sites (eg pubpeer), hot spots to read first (eg CoIs/tables/methods/clinicaltrials.gov), etc. A few things I have found so far...

@hertzpodcast Episode 110: Red flags for errors in papers fireside.fm/episode/fVsoDi…

Is computerised cognitive (“brain”) training a possible treatment for ADHD?

We took nearly 3-years to answer that question via a meta-analysis of 36 RCTs (n=2234).

Today our work is published in @molpsychiatry 🎉 🥳

🧵 1/n TL;DR

⭐️ No empirical support for the use of CCT as a stand-alone intervention for ADHD symptoms
⭐️Small effects, of likely limited clinical importance, on inattention symptoms – but likely setting-specific.

2/n

To help me get back into some sort of routine, I’m going to restart my #paperperday challenge and finish when normal life resumes. Yes, your timeline with be spammed with papers focusing on psychology, cognitive neuroscience, reproducible, and transparent research, again! #1 Seven Steps Toward Transparency and Replicability in Psychological Science psyarxiv.com/32uz6/ by @dstephenlindsay

“these are...disciplines, practices, even aspirations...I’m still working on them myself...most of us would do better science if we worked on these“

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…