ERROR

This is a follow-up on bsky.app/profile/erro...

News from scientific self-correction: Authors pushing to get errors in their papers corrected. Lukas continues to be a role model for how scientists should handle post-publication peer review.

Improving scientific practice can seem daunting. In this fantastic talk (and thread below), Julia Rohrer shares practical ways to communicate methodological insights to a wider audience of researchers.

At ERROR, we cannot compete with million-dollar bounties for whistleblowers. But it is great to see sleuthing work rewarded, and institutions admitting when their researchers engaged in misconduct.

Post-publication peer review is at it best when it's thoughtful, scrupulous, steeped in detail – and challenges key claims of the paper. @janhove.bsky.social's discussion of a recent paper on multilingualism exemplifies this.

Metascientists step up as role models for a healthy error culture in science. Here is a great case where an author and a critical reader collaborated to set the record straight.

Voluntary retraction remains a key way to put scientific self-correction into practice. Zhu and Holmes (2024) did the right thing when they realized that some of their results were based on a coding error.

Original: psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/202...

With retraction: psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/202...

Many error remain to be found in clinical trials. Patients deserve reliable results. Kudos to these authors for their persistent work to correct the record.

Congratulations to @simine.com for winning the Einstein Foundation Individual Award! 🎉

A well-deserved recognition for her seminal efforts to improve scientific rigor, which includes instituting detailed checks for errors and computational reproducibility at Psychological Science.

I think this is an overly pessimistic take from the @bmj.com.

Sharing data does not inherently increase trust, rather it enables verification which allows for trust calibration.

This example is a win. Serious issues were rapidly detected that would not have been without mandatory data sharing.

Synchronous Robustness Reports could explore implications of different analytical choices – but they could still suffer from bias. Hardwicke argues that preregistration is crucial to prevent it.

@tomhardwicke.bsky.social

Are methodological and causal inference errors creating a false impression that the gut microbiome causes autism? In this strong analysis, Mitchell, Dahly, and Bishop question the evidence.

They show that triangulation in science requires multiple robust lines of research.

New Nature podcast episode about ERROR and the Perspectives on Scientific Error workshop!

“We pay experts to examine important and influential scientific publications for errors ... We expect most published research to contain some errors ... our reward system pays bonuses to both authors and reviewers even when minor errors are found ..."
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/07/13/e...

Home ERROR is a bug bounty program for science to systematically detect and report errors in academic publications

✨ ERROR (@error.reviews) is a bug-bounty program for science that seeks to estimate the prevalence and nature of errors. error.reviews

Frontiers | The Emperor’s old clothes: a critical review of circular fashion in gray literature

EU legislation requiring clothes be reused and recycled may be based on a numerical error in a 2017 NGO report where $460 billion was added instead of subtracted.

www.frontiersin.org/journals/sus...

Thank you for sharing this! Reposting to note a @nature.com feature from Aug 2024 by @plantnerd.bsky.social on the ERROR project. 🧪 www.nature.com/articles/d41...

My first time acting as a recommender for the ERROR project.
Huge props to the authors @erichehman.bsky.social et al. for exposing themselves to this detailed post-pub peer review and to Will Lowe @conjugateprior.org for his detailed review and reproduction.

Really amazingly heartening to see that academic discourse can also be like this

One of our main goals with @error.reviews is to shift scientific culture to identify, acknowledge, and correct errors in the literature. Eric’s response to the recent report on his work is a perfect example of embodying these values. Kudos to the authorship team and reviewer Will Lowe.

It is an honor for anyone to care enough about your work to check it, so thanks dudes. A mistake I suggest others not make is failing to ensure that all the data, from download, to merge, to analysis is available and each step, not just the final analysis, is reproducible.

This sounds like the same error I blogged about a few years ago, the common error of trying to control for population (or body size or many etc) by dividing the outcome variable by it. Props to the authors for seeking review and taking the issue seriously. Role models for us all.

A ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ model response to finding problems in your published research. If you’ve published more than a few papers, you too have almost certainly made at least one mistake, so we should normalise addressing them like this!

Great to see @error.reviews approaching error detection so sensitively

THIS is how science works. A great and honorable reaction - especially in these times of resistance to facts and smug self-righteousness. Thanks to @erichehman.bsky.social & @error.reviews!

We've had a paper reviewed by ERROR, which has concluded we had a "major error that affects a core conclusion"
Few comments on the conclusion and the process in general
1/n

The full rationale, including the review and author response, are available on PsyArXiv: osf.io/preprints/ps.... The study materials and all new materials generated as part of the review are on OSF: osf.io/abyqs/. Original article available here: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/....