Measurement Schmeasurement #aps18sf is online! 🔥🔥🔥 Given that some folks didn't find a spot in the room, & that not everybody was able to join APS, here are our slides & a blog post summary. With Mijke Rhemtulla Y. Andre Wang JK Flake 📈📏 & Scott Lilienfeld. eiko-fried.com/measurement-sc…

Kinda mixed emotions seeing this, as CRT-disbelief relationship was one of the first and most fascinating ideas I came across when I started studying psych. But also really excited to see the field moving to a more nuanced and less WEIRD direction. x.com/wgervais/statu…

The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology, which set out to replicate 50 studies, will complete with 18. A major pitfall was that many of the original studies were so vaguely reported that replication became practically impossible. Just process that. sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/p…

This might be the best piece of advice I've ever seen

This thread has some very interesting points to add to the cost vs. benefit of peer review discussion that has been going on in the academic twitter lately. Tl;dr: individual researchers benefiting doesn't necessarily mean scientific progress benefits too.

"Retraction of a journal article doesn’t make its findings false" – while technically true, is 1. entirely missing the point of the whole Wansink debacle and 2. exactly the kind of attitude that is a huge part of the problem.

Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but this sounds like a terrible & misguided policy. We need to make retractions socially acceptable, not give people more incentives to fight it.

So that statistic caught my eye. Some background: I worked in technical recruiting, my girlfriend is a SWE, I'd say that about half my closest friends are women SWEs. This statistic was so far off their experiences and mine that I was instantly suspicious. So I dug into it.

This is pretty cool! Getting to see how others actually work is surprisingly rare, considering how useful it is for learning (and getting rid of that nasty feeling that no one else has to constantly google how to do the most basic things).

Just got a review for a manuscript I co-authored that was fairly positive. But buried in the review was this gem: “I suggest the authors utilize an English language proofing service” All authors are from Norwegian institutions, but English is my mother-tongue...

A statistical method used only in sports science makes it easier to find publishable results, but “Does just meeting a criteria such as ‘there’s some chance this thing works’ represent a standard we ever want to be using in science?” 53eig.ht/2GmcxXV

PNAS straw man alert. Reformers: irreproducibility *caused by biased research practices & low transparency* should be fixed, here's how Status quoers: irreproducibility happens anyway, so who cares. Also my grandad smoked & lived to 100 so ciggies are fine pnas.org/content/115/20…