Brian Nosek

📣 Introducing ManyLabsDACH!

We are delighted to announce our new large-scale crowd-science study spanning Germany (D), Austria (A), and Switzerland (CH). Each participating lab will submit one design proposal, and all participating labs will then jointly select the design to be implemented.

Building a Publishing Model for Replication: Q&A with the Senior Editors of Replication Research COS spoke with the senior editors of Replication Research—a community-led Diamond Open Access journal that supports reproduction and replication studies.

Replication Research (R2), a 🆕 community-led Diamond OA journal, makes replication studies more discoverable, publishable & rigorously evaluated—without subscription barriers or author fees. Ahead of #LoveReplicationsWeek, R2's senior editors shared their vision in our Q&A:

Clicking on both the title and the pdf links worked just fine for me here. They didn't for you?

Thanks for the heads up. I just checked on Google Scholar and found and downloaded several pdfs from OSF. Can you provide some specific examples so that we can share it with the product team? @cos.io @olsonscholcomm.bsky.social

Five ways to spot when a paper is a fraud Science sleuths share their common-sense tips for sniffing out fishy articles.

Science sleuths share their common-sense tips for sniffing out fishy articles

go.nature.com/4ceKgVF

Building a More Resilient Ecosystem for Publicly-Funded Research Data COS previously announced efforts to develop a community-driven strategic plan for long-term preservation, accessibility, and usability of federally-funded data. This post shares updates on the…

As a member of @cos.io effort to build a more resilient ecosystem (see link below if you missed it), we want to draw attention to the call for feedback. Be sure to share your thoughts with us by March 2, ahead of our next planning meeting, using the survey on the post!
www.cos.io/blog/buildin...

Global Research Initiative on Open Science establishes its Academic Advisory Board GRIOS, the Global Research Initiative on Open Science, is pleased to announce the establishment of its Academic Advisory Board (AAB), following a highly competitive selection process. The newly appoin...

GRIOS has established its Academic Advisory Board: 11 leading scholars from 9 countries across Europe, Africa & the Americas, with expertise in #metascience, #reproducibility, #ResearchPolicy & #ScholComm and strong interest in evidence-based #OpenScience policies
🔗 www.grios.org/global-resea...

2025 #EinsteinFoundationAward winners' colloquium w/
+ @simine.com, psychologist @unimelb.edu.au
+ Olavo Amaral, coordinator BRI/@redebrrepro.bsky.social
+ Max Sprang, bioinformatician @unimainz.bsky.social

March 13 at @bihatcharite.bsky.social & online
www.einsteinfoundation.de/en/insights/...

Input on Development of a Community-Led Strategy for Ensuring the Preservation, Accessibility, and Usability of Publicly-Funded Research Data The Center for Open Science (COS) is leading an effort to develop a community-driven strategic plan for ensuring the long-term preservation, accessibility, and usability of federally-funded scientific...

💡 Rather than reinventing the wheel, we're aiming to coordinate and amplify existing efforts, while identifying any gaps to galvanize more action.

Ahead of the committee's in-person meeting in early March, we want to hear from you. Share your thoughts with us through this survey 👇
(3/3)

Join us on Thurs for funder perspectives on open science policy development. Register: cos-io.zoom.us/webinar/regi.... This session explores how funding orgs create, roll out, & manage open science policies that increase transparency in the research they support, aligned with their missions & values

Q&A: How does Psychology Professor Brian Nosek Think We Can Improve Scientific Research? Co-founder of the Center for Open Science, Prof. Nosek is the invited speaker for this week's Page-Barbour Lectures at UVA.

Attention: People in the Charlottesville region. I will be giving the Page Barbour lectures on Tue, Wed, and Thu evening this week in Nau Hall at UVA. Open to the public.

More information: as.virginia.edu/news/qa-how-...

To: Jeevacation[jeevacation@gmail.com] From: roger schank Sent: Mon 1/4/2010 12:53:33 PM Subject: Re: there is a simpler explanation about women and intelligence wrong; one; my very best PhD student was female; smartest woman I ever knew; she has decided to quit being a professor and is now an accupuncturist; that is the point; no matter how smart, she wanted to be liked or some such crap; also she failed to be brilliant when I made her leave Yale; she needed a man in order to be smart; they all do roger schank http://www.rogerschank.com/ On Jan 4, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Jeevacation wrote: > It's the tail of distribution , no really smart women ---none > Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 4, 2010, at 7:15 AM, roger schank • t > wrote: » intelligence comes about in part from real focus (goal-directed >> behavior); (this is why you have the absent minded professor » caricature) >> it is a rare woman who is not first and foremost focussed on what >> others are thinking and feeling about her >> >> hard to be brilliant if you are worrying if you look fat or why >> another woman hates you or why you dont own a kelly bag

Epstein responds in the affirmative, insisting "no really smart women---none." Schank, in turn, admits that his "very best Phd student was female," but laments that she "decided to quit being a professor," adding "that is the point; no matter how smart, she wanted to be liked or some such crap."

An indicator that a reform practice is being taken seriously is that someone goes to the trouble of banning it. Progress!

OpenSAFELY news: you can apply to do non-COVID research, from today! | Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science We are delighted to announce that - from today - you can submit applications to the OpenSAFELY service for non-COVID-19 studies.

OpenSAFELY is open from today! Huge thanks to all who supported this vast collaboration: whole population GP data; in a productive platform; innovative privacy protections; unprecedented support from professions, privacy campaigners; &c

Now it's over to users!

www.bennett.ox.ac.uk/blog/2026/02...

An interesting experiment in reproducibility: the NanoBubbles project is looking for researchers/labs in nanotechnology who can help with understanding the discrepancy between an widely cited work and its mostly failed replication

By actively setting your thresholds, you are contributing to a healthy social network. Those that are persistently unproductive will have fewer and fewer willing to listen to them, either incentivizing them to be more constructive or sending them to the oblivion of being ignored entirely.

argument that they generate will be curated, elaborated, extended, and repackaged by others who are still willing to listen to them. Excellent arguments will eventually come to your awareness by those curators, perhaps even in a constructive form!

I am pro-"negative statements" and try to cultivate a feed where I am more likely to see them presented constructively.

A nice feature of the open system where anyone can follow anyone is that you can avoid those that exceed your personal unconstructive threshold and trust that the occasional good

Also, a structural feature of bsky/twitter is that the more extreme statements (and insults) get more engagement. So, it is easy to perceive polarization, camps, and extreme views being normal.

The only real solution there is to ignore the bait (and baiters) and engage w/ the more normal discourse.

Yes, I agree. Live interaction at meetings or podcasts give more opportunity to share perspectives and establish trust. The benefits could spill over to social media for those involved in the live interactions and the observers who gain better appreciation of the people and their points of view.

Core traits I value in consuming social media content: respect, assuming positive intent, seeking to understand other's argument with questions rather than making assumptions, and pursuing steelperson understanding and engagement with others' points of view.

Constructive disagreement is hard; we will all fail to do it well sometimes. And, there are individual differences; some are great at it, others less so.

For my own taste, I attend most to how people treat those that they disagree with. How people treat those they agree w/ offers less insight.

Perhaps the biggest positive for my bsky experience is that I don't perceive "sides" very much in my feed. I mostly see interesting, complex perspectives engaging with others w/ high variation in who agrees and disagrees with each other, depending on the topic. I am getting a lot of value from it!

I love the productive disagreement on bsky. I found that most of the unproductive disagreement disappeared from my feed by muting just a few accounts that were most persistent in ad hominem, assuming negative intent, and stereotyping others. Most of the "sides" seem to revolve around those.

Nanoscience is latest discipline to embrace large-scale replication efforts A European project calls for help to verify whether carbon quantum dots are really able to sense chemicals in cells.

Wonderful to see this replication effort in the physical sciences using the models of many labs, preregistration, and transparency that have benefitted other fields.

And, an investment of $9.5 million to do it!

www.nature.com/articles/d41...

Openness throughout the research life cycle. Because your paper is not your research, it's how you tell people about your research.

In a bit of a full circle moment, there was a stage 0 when I started doing online sampling:

0. very cheap, but nobody believes that they are people, I mean, who would use the Internet and do things anyway? They could say that they are literally ANYBODY. Maybe they aren't people at all!

CALL FOR PARTICIPATION – Replication in Bionanoscience ...

📣 Call for replicators: The NanoBubbles initiative aims to evaluate reproducibility of influential experimental claims in nanoscience. Independent research teams from nano or physical chemistry may apply. Participants receive financial support.

Deadline: March 16

Introducing COS’s 2026–2028 Strategic Plan: Advancing Lifecycle Open Science The Center for Open Science (COS) has released its 2026–2028 Strategic Plan, outlining a focused, three-year direction for advancing openness, integrity, and trustworthiness in research.

COS has released its 2026–2028 Strategic Plan, outlining a focused direction for advancing openness, integrity, and trustworthiness in research. This plan aligns our work around Lifecycle Open Science (LOS)—research with publicly accessible plans, contents, and outcomes.

💡:

Thanks, I think we are *finally* arriving at a communication approach that will help tell the story internally and externally about our role in the bigger social system. It should help us make decisions that reduce redundancy with what others are doing well and increase focus on our unique strengths