Anouk Bouma

1-panel SMBC comic update - Two people are talking while seated at computers. One of them says : "Wait! Look, if we change our hypothesis a little, run this other model, and then make a few tweaks to the variables... BAM! No need to publish. The weekend if free." A caption below the panel reads as follows : "New scientific trend: reverse p-hacking. P-hacking is the practice of manipulating data until a statistically significant result is found, here they are doing the opposite to avoid work.

There's got to be SOME hypothesis that makes our experiment useless. THINK!

COMIC ◆ www.smbc-comics.com/comic/stats-3
PATREON ◆ www.patreon.com/ZachWeinersm...
STORE ◆ smbc-store.myshopify.com

Opportunity for PhD's in the Netherlands (Dutch speaking): temporary job as research assistant on NWO's grant assessment system. This paid position would be a six-month break in your PhD after which you go back to finishing your PhD.

Very interesting opportunity!

More info: tinyurl.com/2fwz4xru

Indeed, that would be very interesting!

Thank you, this is interesting and is more of an indirect measure of the reaction (or absence of one) of the community to certain events. I am also interested, however, in more of a direct measure (people asking other people) :)

I think the main thing I want to argue for is that we should not just assume about the usability of our products, but we should test it on our actual intended audience. The product is only as good as how well it can solve the problem it was intended to solve for the people it was meant for

True, I don't doubt that the replication crisis must have had influence on how psychologists view the robustness of their field, and it is informally discussed a lot. But it is surprisingly hard to find studies that empirically investigated researchers' trust in science in this context

Are there studies on the relation between the replication crisis and the trust that (psychology) researchers have in their research and the research conducted in their field?

Most papers I find focus on the trust of laypeople, but I am wondering about researchers themselves in the crisis' context

Thank you!

I'd be interested in reading these papers once they're out or the registrations if they are already openly available somewhere.

If there's something to read on these projects already, could you point me to it? Looking forward to seeing the results! :)

Journal club Sign-up The next journal club will take place online on discord on October 6th 12:00 - 14:00 (CEST). We will discuss the following paper: Bright, L. K. (2021). Why do scientists lie?. Royal Institute of Ph...

New academic year, new online journal club! 📖

October 6th 12:00-14:00 (CEST). This time we will discuss the paper by Bright (2021): 'Why do scientists lie?'.

Are you an early-career academic, and want to join?

You can sign up here: forms.gle/32ZNxQDkY5vy...

Monday I sent a survey pre-notification to potential participants

I didn't expect so many to reply with interest to that email. Wishing me luck with my PhD and saying they will surely participate in my interesting study

Good reminder that people can be so nice

Hoping for a nice response rate too🤞

For neurofeedback (a form of biofeedback) I know that there is quite some research on it. My (far from expert) take on the literature two years ago was that the conflicts of interest were huge (papers written by distributers of the equipment) and only non-RCT's were able to find effects.

Introducing the Simulation Studies Preregistration Template: Q&A with Björn S. Siepe, František Bartoš, and Samuel Pawel Initially submitted through COS’s open call for community-designed preregistration templates, the Simulation Studies Template is now part of the expanding collection of preregistration resources avail...

A new preregistration template for simulation studies is now live on OSF. Thanks to the creators and the preregistration template working group for proposing and shepherding this to make it available to users.

See the post if you would like to propose a new template.

www.cos.io/blog/introdu...

Awesome Raphael!! Such a cool project with already tangible results and implementations. Well-earned spot on the list of commendations

This is a great example of why it’s so important that open science tools are actually easy to use, something I highlighted in a recent blog post:

Journal club Sign-up The first journal club will take place online on July 21st 12:00 - 14:00 (CEST). Bring your lunch, so we can have a fruitful online lunch together! We will discuss the following paper: Romero, F. (20...

Join our online journal club meeting next Monday July 21st (12 - 14 CEST), and discuss a paper with fellow ECRs!

This time, we will discuss the following paper:
Romero, F. (2019). Philosophy of science and replicability crisis

Sign up using this link: forms.gle/gRWf6SEyf2ki...

See you there!

First time presenting at a big conference: check!

So happy to see how the community of PYMS is growing over the last couple of days, and how people are constantly finding each other to hang out at #metascience2025. This is what PYMS is all about!

I’ve been thinking a lot about the interaction yesterday at the #metascience2025 panel on AI and more generally how I’ve felt about the conference and how I fit into the metascience community, and here’s a potentially useful analogy… 🌈

thread👇

I'll be presenting at the Metascience conference next week, who will I see there? 🙋‍♀️

Looking forward to it!

Multi-Stage Registration: A Better* Way to Pre-Register — Meta-Research Center This blogpost was written by Cas Goos. Cas his PhD project focuses on studying and enhancing various interventions for improving scientific robustness at journal level, supervised by Michèle Nuijten a...

What if you want to deviate from you preregistration but keep the label "confirmatory"? Cas Goos introduces multi-stage registration as a solution.

Read all about it in the semi-new (I somehow missed a month of blogging?) blog post from the Meta-Research Center:

metaresearch.nl/blog/2025/5/...

The main point I want to make is that we shouldn't take usability of a solution for granted just because it produces the 'correct' output. That doesn't mean that behavior change isn't happening yet right now, because it definitely is (which is great!) [2/2]

Yes that is totally true and it is also clear that that is helping and changing behavior (e.g., more people than ever are preregistering their studies).

I also think that teaching or workshops in itself is a great way to test the usability of a solution. [1/2]

Thank you! This is exactly the kind of thing I have been looking for but could not find

Agreed, it would be better to have a peer-reviewed piece out there. Maybe I should put some time into that...

STS is a good suggestion, but I am not familiar enough to know how to find these specific papers. If you find something, let me know!

I agree. I think it is difficult to get these different worlds together, the main reason probably being money. Metascientists want to develop free and opensource tools (and rightfully so), but marketing/design experts need to be payed for their labor that makes it difficult to work together

Could you explain what you mean exactly? Do you mean that there is actually a lot more testing going on but that this is just not reported on?

I don't, actually. This is also why I decided to write this down myself. I have tried to find papers stating similar arguments but I haven't been able to find them. If anyone knows of any, I would love to get them tipped to be able to read them :)

(You could of course cite the blog itself 🙂)