Florian Keusch

What a year so far! 915 submissions to @sscratsage.bsky.social as of today. Need to share and amplify the great work being done at the journal as soon as I can. Updating the website and the collections over the next week. Stay tuned!!!

Promotionsstelle

📢One week left to apply!

DZHW is hiring a research associate at the intersection of survey methodology and computer science (Hannover).

Do your PhD in an interdisciplinary setting with excellent supervision.

I'd apply myself if I weren't already on the team🤓

👉 karriere.dzhw.eu/jobposting/b...

If you've any questions please don't hesitate to contact me! Otherwise APPLY APPLY APPY‼️ Looking forward to working with you🤗🤓

These companies must be using the same crazy survey provider. What is this?!

(2) All other authors on the cited paper did not work on that paper, although I have multiple other papers with them (except one). And (3) the journal is not correct. (3/3)

I am a co-author on a paper with that exact title, but (1) a PhD student is the first author (not I as the cited reference says) and there is another coauthor - both are not on the cited paper. (2/3)

Had only heard about this from others, but now it happened to me: got a citation alert (from ResearchGate) and found that the paper the authors cite does not exist (at least not in that form). (1/3)

❗️📢 Tue, Oct 7, 10:00-11:00 CET:
Mannheim Research Colloquium on Survey Methods
#MaRCS

Alexandru Cernat (@manchester.ac.uk):

"Estimating Multiple Types of Error Concurrently Using the Multitrait-Multierror (MTME) Approach"

👉 www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/en/news/even...
1/2

Data Donation as a Method to Measure Physical Activity in Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Web Survey Assessing Consent Rates, Donation Success, and Bias Background: Accurate measurement of physical activity (PA) is key to identifying determinants of health and developing appropriate interventions. Self-reports of PA (eg, in surveys or diary studies) often suffer from measurement error. Providing study participants with wearable devices that passively track PA reduces reactivity and recall error but participants’ noncompliance and high device costs are problematic. Many older adults now have smartphones that track PA. Based on legal requirements, data controllers (eg, health apps) must provide users with access to their data, and individuals can request and donate these data for research. This user-centric approach provides researchers with access to individual-level data, and it gives users control over what data are shared. Objective: We conduct a first test of the data donation approach for PA data among older adults. We study (1) how willing and successful older adults are to donate their PA data from different smartphone apps, (2) what drives donation of PA data at the different stages of participation, and (3) what biases arise from selective data donation. Methods: To answer our research questions, we use cross-sectional observational data from a probability-based online panel of the Dutch general population. A total of 2086 members of the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences panel aged 50 years and older completed a web survey in 2024. All iPhone and Android smartphone owners were asked to download passively collected PA data from their devices (Apple Health, Google Location History, or Samsung Health) and donate them via the Port platform. Results: Out of the 2086 survey participants, 1889 (91%) reported owning an iPhone or Android phone compatible for data donation, 606 (29%) reported willingness to donate PA data, 354 (17%) started the data donation, and 256 (12%) successfully provided a data package. Gender, age, educational attainment, monthly personal net income, smartphone usage behavior, privacy- and trust-related attitudes, and type of health app from which the data were requested correlated with behavior at the different stages of study participation. Self-reported reasons for nonwillingness to donate related mainly to expected technical issues, privacy concerns, and perceived usefulness. Compared with the entire sample, data donors reported better health, fewer health-related limitations, fewer difficulties performing tasks, and more PA. Conclusions: Our study shows that data donation from smartphones as part of a probability-based web survey of older adults is a feasible alternative for the measurement of PA, especially for iPhone owners younger than 70 years. Limitations relate to nonparticipation which correlates strongly with characteristics of smartphone ownership and comfort with device use. Substantive bias in health and PA outcomes persists for those who donated in comparison with all survey respondents.

Data Donation as a Method to Measure Physical Activity in Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Web Survey Assessing Consent Rates, Donation Success, and Bias

Big Thank You to nimlas.isr.umich.edu (@bradytwest.bsky.social, @sungheelee.bsky.social, Esther Friedman) at @um-src.bsky.social for funding the project.

...PA data donation worked (very) well, especially for iPhone owners between 50 and 70 years; less so for Android phone owners and people >70. Nonparticipation correlates strongly with characteristics of smartphone ownership, comfort with smartphone use, and health status #HealthyDonorBias.

Happy to report that our study on "Data Donation as a Method to Measure Physical Activity in Older Adults" was just published in JMIR. www.jmir.org/2025/1/e69799 We asked people aged 50+ in the Dutch #LISS panel to donate physical activity (PA) data from their smartphones. We found that...

YouTube video by UMISR Moving Beyond Response Rates to Understand Nonresponse Bias with Brady West

I gave a talk at ISR yesterday on declining response rates in surveys, and why we should not automatically assume that this means our survey estimates will be subject to nonresponse bias. Here is the recording for anyone interested! Thanks again to ISR Insights. 🙏

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSmD...

ORF FRAGT - Die große ORF-Umfrage 2025

Gilt, aus methodischer Sicht, aber leider auch hierfür: www.orffragt.at/index-start3...

Pet peeve of the day: journals that only tell you the deadline of a review *after* you've accepted the request.

Thrilled to share: our Special Issue in Social Science Computer Review (@sscratsage.bsky.social) on digital behavioral data quality is out now. Many thanks to all contributing authers and my co-editors @clauwa.bsky.social and Bernd Weiß:
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

46 yellow postal boxes containing a total of 6,753 letters

Mission ‘New Recruitment’ is underway: For the 4th time in its 13-year history, the German Internet Panel is inviting new respondents. On Sept 1st, we sent out 6,753 invitation letters and we are waiting excitedly for the response!

Screenshot of the call for applications for MZES Visiting Fellowships, 22 September 2025. For the full text, please follow the link.

📣 Attention, postdoctoral researchers!

❗ Apply now for our MZES Visiting Fellowships 😊

💡 Spend 2-4 weeks at the MZES to share ideas
💰 Funding for accommodation, travel, daily allowance
📆 Deadline: 28 November

Full information:
👉 www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/en/news/deta...

... Ziel ist die Erstellung eines möglichst breiten Meinungsbildes, nicht jedoch die Ziehung einer repräsentativen Stichprobe nach strengen wissenschaftlichen Kriterien."

(2/2)

ORF FRAGT - Die große ORF-Umfrage 2025

Das lässt nichts Gutes erahnen...

www.orffragt.at/faq.php%22
"Ist die Befragung repräsentativ?
Im Rahmen der ORF-Dialogoffensive soll bei dieser Umfrage allen Interessierten die Gelegenheit zur Teilnahme geboten werden....
(1/2)

Danke. Ein Schelm, wer Böses denkt, dass die Option "Die Folgen der Klimaerwärmung (sic!) werden in der Öffentlichkeit untertrieben dargestellt." nicht vorhanden ist.

Allgemein Antwortkategorien from Hell. 🫣

ORF FRAGT - Die große ORF-Umfrage 2025

Wir haben an den österreichischen Universitäten ausgezeichnete Panel-Befragungen dazu, wie Österreich lebt, denkt und fühlt – alles in Datenarchiven frei zugänglich. Dafür braucht es keine Website-Umfrage im #Boulevardstyle. Mag mir das jemand erklären? Rausgeschmissenes Geld.

a looney tunes looking for a job poster with wile e coyote looking through binoculars ALT: a looney tunes looking for a job poster with wile e coyote looking through binoculars

🚨🚨Attention please!! I'm looking for a research associate at the intersection of survey methodology and computer science at DZHW in Hannover (Germany). Do your PhD in an interdisciplinary research setting and with an excellent supervision. Apply now⬇️

bit.ly/dzhw_promoti...

In welchen Schulen gibt es öffentlichen Zugang zu den Klassenfotos (zB über eine Schulwebsite) und in welchen nicht? Welche Schüler*innen sind auf den Klassenfotos und welche nicht? … Hängen diese Faktoren mit der interessierenden Größe zusammen?

Sehr interessantes potentielles Klausurbeispiel für meine VL Datenerhebung Klausur. Welche möglichen systematischen Verzerrungen könnten sich dabei ergeben?

The (mis)use of Google Trends data in the social sciences - A systematic review, critique, and recommendations Researchers increasingly use aggregated search data from Google Trends to study a wide range of phenomena. Although this new data source possesses som…

ICYMI: If you’re working or are planning on working with Google Trends Data for research, make sure to read this article by @floriankeusch.bsky.social & co-authors. They explore common pitfalls, incl. construct validity and reliability, and show how to improve data quality to enhance robustness.

Under what circumstances does it make sense for me to appeal a decision? The answer is that you should appeal only if the following two things are true a) A reviewer made a flagrant error of interpretation as to what you had done, and b) The editors' letter indicates that this error was consequential for the decision. Note that (a) excludes differences of judgment of quality ("Reviewer A says it wasn't good enough, but it was!") and differences of interpretations of the data ("Reviewer A says my finding is due to selection, and I say it isn't!"). Note that (b) excludes times when the editorial letter passes over an error made by a reviewer in silence. The following are not justifications for making an appeal: c) You think a reviewer was biased or unfair. The editorial board understands that they have to contextualize different reviewers' positions to assemble a coherent expert judgment of a manuscript. d) You think that the reviewers in general are supportive. Because we can only publish a fraction of the papers that are submitted, we must reject some papers that are good, and that reviewers think are good, to make space for those that reviewers, and we, think are of outstanding importance. Further, reviewers sometimes use gentler and more supportive language in their comments to the author than they do in their comments to the editor. e) A reviewer found a problem in a revised manuscript that is inherent in the design seemingly acceptable in the first round of review. We do our best never to reject manuscripts upon review for reasons that should have been raised when the manuscript was first submitted. However, one reason we do add new reviewers in the R&R stage is to catch weaknesses that may have been previously missed, and if these are believed to be uncorrectable, a rejection is the only proper decision.

When (if ever) is it right to appeal a rejection? This advice offered by AJS seems good more generally

Academic authors, here's a peek into the black box of journal publishing from an journal editor if you can bear it:

Apparently, these days one can study human behavior by looking *only* at the behavior of LLM chatbots (and publish it in PNAS). To an empirical sociologist this feels very wrong www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...