And once again it's not the journalists that add hype and spin, it's the researchers themselves and their press release. Scientists should carefully calibrate the certainty and importance of their findings when writing articles AND when communicating them more broadly.

And we’re live! 🎉 I’m beyond excited about the Reproducibility Network launching in Norway 🇳🇴 Cheers to even more rigorous and transparent research in the coming years! 🥂 And get in touch if you’d like to get involved! #openscience #reproducibility

Just leaving this here: [Courtesy of Matteo Carandini]

On March 4 (12-13 CET) we will be holding an online town hall meeting, in which we'll discuss the next steps for the Norwegian Reproducibility Network, including the establishment of Local Nodes. Meeting details can be found in our latest post getrevue.co/profile/NORRN/…

You think you already know everything about p-hacking? Let's see! A preprint and a 🧵 (with @nicebread303 ) psyarxiv.com/xy2dk/

Finally! Postdoc researchers please come work with us Det utdanningsvitskaplege fakultet (UiO) to evaluate #education in #schools in the #EDUCATE project #fagfornyelsen #postdocjobs Universitetet i Oslo Circle U. Greta Björk Gudmundsdottir Gerard Doetjes Beate Goldschmidt-Gjerløw Rebecca L S Barreng Nora E. Hesby Mathé Ove Hatlevik jobbnorge.no/en/available-j…

All of this. ⬇️ I've chosen to only review for diamond open access journals. I'm still not entirely happy, since they don't publish the reviews and they base publication decisions on impact and novelty. Still feels better than reviewing for legacy journals.

This is even more interesting than a learned society launching an open research platform (which is amazing!) They ditched their traditional society journal and built this instead! Hosts research proposals, data, analysis, null results, peer review. The future! 🚀

Interesting outcome measure of schooling in this new field experiment. Schooling may increase capacity to stay concentrated for longer, and nonacademic games is as effective as math problems for this outcome. nber.org/papers/w30133

1/n Okay, I've now seen multiple tweets lauding Clarivates newly released Impact Factors for specific journals. Can we just stop with the IF madness? There's so much wrong with focusing on these, and as scientists we should just reject them. Why?

New preprint with Anna Abalkina @abalkina.bsky.social with evidence that a paper mill has infiltrated an established Wiley journal - Journal of Community Psychology psyarxiv.com/2yf8z/ (thread)

One interesting thing in the recent phonics trial, which also happened with an assessment for learning trial and a mindset trial, is the issue that we often want trials for phenomena that already have become popular and pervasive.

Academic hot take: requiring PhD students to publish a dissertation manuscript in a journal before they can graduate is pointless, cruel, and stressful for everyone involved. Please everyone stop doing this.

New journal reform just dropped. Greatly improves the efficiency of editorial decision-making, solves reviewer crisis. Bonus: entirely bias-free! (Gift from Malte Elson)

🚨 New Methodology and Research Practice Perspective/Opinion, from Mark White & Roar Stovner: Breakdowns in Scientific Practices: How and Why Some Accepted Scientific Claims May Have Little Actual Support doi.org/10.1525/collab…