Katie Corker

Just a reminder about the new all-island Irish Reproducibility Network. There are already lots of great people involved. You can sign up and find local site leads with the link, and if you are based in Cork feel free to reach out to me directly.

irishrn.org

The Modular Peer Review Working Group we co-organized with @continuous.foundation kicks off in January, 2026!

🚀 Join the cohort shaping how we review modular research outputs like data, code, methods, and visuals.

Sign up here: continuousfoundation.org/peer-form

2️⃣ Publishing preprint reviews:

Another emerging model is overlaying reviews on top of preprints. In this case, the journal publishes formal peer reviews of notable and time-sensitive preprints on its publication website (cross-linked to the preprint).

^ @mitpress.bsky.social started the first journal like this, @rapidreviews-id.bsky.social.

RR\ID was born out of necessity during the pandemic, initially launched as RR: COVID-19 to facilitate speedy review of COVID papers and help distinguish quality research from questionable studies.

🚫 No longer are preprint servers just platforms for sharing draft papers.

Today, they are venues for so much more, like early verification of research, archiving final versions of articles to make them Green OA, and even publishing journals.

🧵 highlighting two preprint journal publishing routes 👇

The EEGManyPipelines Dataset: Metascientific Data on 168 Independent Analyses of a Single EEG Dataset: https://osf.io/c4xwg

International Community Convenes In Pisa To Advance Coordinated Reform In Publishing And Research Assessment – ASAPbio On 14 November 2025, representatives from several organisations across the publishing reform and research assessment reform communities gathered in Pisa,

Together with colleagues from @dorassessment.bsky.social, @cwtsnl.bsky.social, and @sciencecouncil.bsky.social, @asapbio.bsky.social hosted a workshop to identify and advance joint actions to strengthen the research assessment and publishing reform movements. Learn more: asapbio.org/internationa...

1. Transparency is necessary for credibility
2. Transparency is hard to change
3. Require transparency*
4. Transparency is not magic
5. Journals are part of problem
6. Expect more from journals
7. Peer review is not magic
8. A crisis can look a lot like „normal“ science
9. Meta-analysis is not magic

Second ASAPbio fellows project for 2025 - this one around data sharing policies at preprint servers and repositories.

Please help spread the word! All contributions tax deductible!

Starting in about two hours, I’ll be giving a zoom talk about what lessons other disciplines can take from Psychology’s replication crisis.

Link to register: univ-cotedazur.zoom.us/meeting/regi...

The CNRS is breaking free from the Web of Science From January 1st 2026, the CNRS will cut access to one of the largest commercial bibliometric databases, Clarivate Analytics'

CNRS cancels Web of Science in order to focus on qualitative evaluation and promoting the development of open databases.

www.cnrs.fr/en/update/cn...

Building the evidence base for narrative CVs | DORA Four research groups shared their work on Narrative CVs, offering perspectives on: applicant experiences, reviewer behavior and decision-making in NCV-based assessments, and systemic challenges in dri...

Each quarter, DORA hosts a Community of Practice (CoP) for International Initiatives advancing RRA. Four research groups shared insights on narrative CVs - applicant experience, reviewer behavior & cultural change.
Watch & read here 👉 sfdora.org/2025/11/30/e...
#ResearchAssessment #NarrativeCV

Re-upping my Bluetorial about VAERS which is the likely source of these cases.

bsky.app/profile/jere...

2/2

Efficacy and safety of esketamine for “treatment resistant depression”: registered report for a systematic review with an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-con... Background In 2019, the FDA and EMA approved intranasal esketamine for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). The current study re-evaluated its efficacy and safety. Methods This registered report pres...

🚨 Our team has just published a Registered Report in BMC Medicine, one of the very few medical journals that offers this format (if we want better science, we should not follow journal impact factors, we should support journals with the best policies).

Two posts from Bluesky. The first one shows a figure from a paper published in Nature Scientific Reports full of totally incoherent AI fabricated gibberish words. The other a comment on a recently published paper by eLife discussing the paper and its peer reviews which were published along with the paper.

Nature Sci Rep publishes incoherent AI slop. eLife publishes a paper which the reviewers didn't agree with, making all the comments and responses public with thoughtful commentary. One of these journals got delisted by Web of Science for quality concerns from not doing peer review. Guess which one?

More projects are wrapping up, we'll have a few more coming out before the year end, stay tuned!

Photos of Ava Chan, Benjamin Swedlund, and Fotis Mystakopoulos, contributors to the 2025 ASAPbio Fellows Project on Recognition of Preprints.

Thrilled to see the work of 2025 @asapbio.bsky.social Fellows come to completion!

First up, a set of interviews on recognition of preprints:

✨A Funder’s Perspective: youtu.be/CWthlNss7n4
✨A PI’s Perspective: youtu.be/ZSqkwdFYCxQ
✨An ECR Perspective: youtu.be/6Te9dA_nv1k

A promotional graphic titled “Publishing Beyond the Market.” The top half has a gray textured background with the event title in large white text and a vertical label reading “Book Talk.” To the right is an illustration of a tall, uneven stack of books. The bottom half shows two headshots: on the left, Samuel Moore; on the right, Heather Joseph. Text below reads “with Samuel Moore & Heather Joseph.”

📢 Upcoming #booktalk! 📖
Join Samuel Moore & Heather Joseph for PUBLISHING BEYOND THE MARKET, reimagining open access through scholar-led, non-commercial publishing.

📆 Thurs Dec 4th
🕙 10 AM PT / 1 PM ET
📍 Online
🎟️ www.eventbrite.com/e/1839631951...

@SamuelMoore.org @HJoseph.bsky.social

Seems like in fields where separate protocol publication is more common, two papers is happening more often. After 4 years of editing these at AMPPS I have a lot of tweaks I'd suggest to the process (but two papers is not one of them).

At ZPID we are searching for a tenure track assistant professor for Psychological Metascience in joint appointment with @unitrier.bsky.social preferably someone who has conducted quantitative research in metascience in psychology or related disciplines. Questions? Feel free to contact me personally.

Thrilled that @shreyadimri.bsky.social & I will be part of #LoveMethods26!

We'll present on "How to avoid common problems in #SystematicReviews & #MetaAnalyses"

📅 Jan 19–23, 2026 | FREE | All online

Everyone's invited to join the entire week of workshops!

🔗 excelscior.uc.pt/love-methods...

This paper provides guidance and tools for conducting open and reproducible systematic reviews in psychology. It emphasizes the importance of systematic reviews for evidence-based decision-making and the growing adoption of open science practices. Open science enhances transparency, reproducibility, and minimizes bias in systematic reviews by sharing data, materials, and code. It also fosters collaborations and enables involvement of non-academic stakeholders. The paper is designed for beginners, offering accessible guidance to navigate the many standards and resources that may not obviously align with specific areas of psychology. It covers systematic review conduct standards, pre-registration, registered reports, reporting standards, and open data, materials and code. The paper is concluded with a glimpse of recent innovations like Community Augmented Meta-Analysis and independent reproducibility checks.

There is no reason why systematic reviews can't be open. The data used for synthesis is *already* open and there are many excellent open source tools that can facilitate the easy sharing of analysis scripts.

Here's a nice guide for performing open systematic reviews doi.org/10.1525/coll...

A ten-year drive to credit authors for their work — and why there’s still more to do Information about the roles of each author of a paper can help to build trust, integrity and responsible research assessment. Coordinated efforts are needed to consolidate progress.

I completely agree that more is needed to implement the CRediT taxonomy in proper scholarly infrastructure. I love coding, but text and data mining is not the right way to get data that should be available in a standardised format!

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

We proudly present the winners of the #EinsteinFoundationAward for Promoting Quality in Research 2025! The jury has selected outstanding contributions that promote research quality around the world!
In coop w/ QUEST Center @bihatcharite.bsky.social
www.einsteinfoundation.de/presse/2025/... (1/5)

I think it's hard to overstate how much Simine has changed research practices and standards in psychology for the better, despite at times massive resistance from powerful parties with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Very well deserved award imho 🥳

Image screening is going to fail. We need audit trails for data provenance.

I would love to see the for-profit publishing industry taken down in my lifetime.

We give our work away for free and then buy it back again. Madness.

🗓️ Save the date: The next BITSS Annual Meeting is April 16, 2026! The conference will gather experts to discuss changes in academic publishing, AI, and current challenges to research transparency.

@cega-uc.bsky.social @tedmiguel.bsky.social

Join us for the @icoropen.bsky.social webinar recapping the meeting, ‘From Tools to Adoption: A Path to Modular & Interactive Scientific Publishing’. Come find out how we could potentially pivot from the PDF & print based publishing...

Registration details: incentivizingopen.org/2025/11/from...