Aleksandra Lazić, PhD

Huh, yeah, there's always a workaround! Emails for corresponding authors are required and end up public in journals anyway. We can slow it down a bit or just deal with it, which most of us will have to eventually. Ultimately it's about raising awareness of predatory journals and how to avoid them...

Saw someone on LinkedIn argue against preprints because after posting their first one they got spam from predatory journals. I get it, that happens. But maybe just do ORCID with your email instead of putting the address in the PDF? Not saying anything though, doubt it would land well. #OpenScience

Toward the end of his two-volume Treatise on the Venom of the Viper, published in 1781, the Tuscan naturalist Deluxe Fontana declared: "I have made more than 6000 experiments; I have had more than 4000 animals bit; I have employed upwards of 3000 vipers and may have been deceived; some essential circumstance may have escaped me: I may have neglected some other, not thinking it necessary; my consequences may have been too general, my experiments too few in number. In a word, I may very easily have been mistaken, and it would be almost impossible that I should never have been so in a matter so difficult, so obscure, and likewise so new."

Fontana thinking his 6000+ experiments may not have been enough to feel confident in his conclusions in the 18th century while we expect our singular experiments and their standalone replications to do wonders some 250 years later... (excerpt from the intro of Jutta Schickore's About Experiment)

Let's say I'm a researcher in a politically controversial topic: flu and hepatitis vaccines for children. I study interventions to increase vaccine uptake.

Would I be doing "activist science" given the anti-vaxx political movement & anti-vaxx govt actions here in the US?

(Inspired by #SPSP2026)

Pro tip: Say hi to me on the Whova app to gain some easy leaderboard points. 😉

RDA 26th Plenary Meeting (VP26) – RDA

Official RDA VP26 page: www.rd-alliance.org/plenaries/p26/

#vp26 #rdaplenary26 #openscience #researchdatamanagement | Aleksandra Lazić, PhD Currently putting together my personal schedule for the Research Data Alliance (RDA) 26th Plenary Meeting. Say hi on the Whova app (easy leaderboard points 😉), or recommend sessions I absolutely must ...

Anyone else attending the 26th Plenary of the Research Data Alliance? There's still time to register. 👀 @researchdataall.bsky.social

My 7th RDA plenary, 5th online. Somehow it still feels like a reunion every time.

www.linkedin.com/posts/alelaz... #RDAPlenary26 #OpenScience #ResearchDataManagement

Exactly 😅

Slept only five hours last night, then went to a five-hour long webinar, and then slept for another five hours straight. (chuckles) I'm in danger

Awards It is important to recognise the labour and commitment involved in improving psychological science, including through research (both academic and non-academic), tools, practice, science communicati…

🏆 We welcome nominations for the SIPS Awards! 🏆

🏅 SIPS Mission Awards: Recognizing high-impact projects shaping the field.
📢 SIPS Commendations: Highlighting valuable contributions, from blog posts to research tools!

🗓️ Deadline for the next round: April 30
🔗 Submit now:

Some great events next week, all online and open to all👇

See below for individual session links👇👇

I woke up in the middle of the night to tell you that Matera is in the region of Basilicata (not Puglia). I'm so sorry, Italian police don't come for me please

I'm not sure how popular it is in psychology. I haven't come across any studies using it, at least not in my subfield. But this is pretty close to how I was taught 👇
stats.oarc.ucla.edu/r/dae/canoni...

Omg, blast from the past. I studied this in undergrad stats but have never actually used it. I just remember the interpretation being pretty similar to factor analysis, so… not very helpful, sorry 😅

Ever since I was a little girl, I knew that I wanted to answer 275 emails per day and argue with administrators. That’s why I chose a career in academia.

Front cover of journal article

Public engagement and climate change: exploring the role of hairdressers as everyday influencers

⭐New paper!⭐ Two research projects exploring the influence that hairdressers—as widespread professionals in conversational spaces—have w/ clients about climate & sustainability.

doi.org/10.1057/s415...

Elite move. #RStats

Causal inference for psychologists who think that causal inference is not for them Correlation does not imply causation and psychologists' causal inference training often focuses on the conclusion that therefore experiments are needed—without much consideration for the causal infer...

You need to bring in the same toolkit as in studies that try to establish causality without randomization.

I know it sounds unfair, but I don’t make the rules. These situations are instances of post-treatment bias, if you want to read up on it as a psychologist:

For me, I think I didn't fully understand what was causing the issue, so I never really thought to troubleshoot it. This is eye-opening. 😅

Elite move. #RStats

Oh wow, thanks, that definitely cuts down the number of steps! No more tweak the resolution, save file, open file, tweak again, save, open… 😅

Okay, I'll revise and resubmit the post. 😄

All roads lead to regret. 😅

I use RStudio on Windows and have always had issues with low plot resolution (not just in the preview). For me, specifying dpi (e.g., dpi = 600) in functions like ggsave() fixes it. I'd personally like to learn of any permanent ways to fix this. It doesn't seem to be common knowledge.

Oh, it is better to have more co-authors for meta-analyses, but in our case it's below ten so it's manageable. 😅

Yes, a lot of academic publishing is broken, so open science practices like preprinting help a lot. In this case, though, it's more about how traditional meta-analytic workflows are just not that efficient.

a close up of a dog 's face with its eyes closed and looking at the camera . Alt: A close-up of a dog’s face, its eyes watery, with a single tear running down its cheek.

When I don't get a request for peer review: Why not me?!
When I do get a request for peer review: Why me????

Online Studies Psychological Science requires that authors who use samples from online data collection include a statement in the Method section explicitly addressing their approach to preventing and detecting automated or AI-generated responses. Rationale As large language models and other generative AI tools become more accessible, the risk of data contamination by non-human respondents has increased dramatically in research. Psychological science (and the social sciences generally) is particularly susceptible to this issue given its growing reliance on online data collection. Preventing automated responses during data collection and detecting them afterward often involve methodological trade-offs. For instance, technical barriers that aim to prevent LLM use (e.g., blocking copy-pasting functionalities) may eliminate behavioral indicators needed for detection (e.g., pasting rather than typing). This policy aims to enhance transparency and reproducibility of reported results by requiring authors to articulate their approach across both prevention and detection dimensions, enabling readers and reviewers to assess the likelihood of reported data being influenced by automated responses. Scope This policy applies to any submission with at least one study that includes data collected online without direct human supervision (e.g., via crowdsourcing platforms, student participants who complete the study online, online recruitment ads, or remote survey distribution tools). Required Reporting Authors must include in the Methods section either: A statement confirming that procedures were in place to prevent and/or detect and exclude automated or AI-generated responses, including a description of those procedures (e.g., explicit participant instructions against LLM use, disabled copy–paste functionality, CAPTCHA use, IP filtering, consistency checks, attention checks, adversarial prompting) as well as the types of automated responses that these procedures are suitable …

Maybe of interest: The submission guidelines of Psychological Science now demand an explicit statement on measures taken to reduce the risk of AI-generated responses for all online studies!

www.psychologicalscience.org/publications...

Want to make your code better at running again in the future?

My talk next month will be filled with lots of tips about how to write sharable, reproducible R code and why it's good for science

Hope to see you there!
#rstats 🌏🧪👩‍💻

Just under a week to go to our opening keynote of Open Research Week 2026 - there is still time to register here: lnkd.in/efQcGZua - What is the public value of openly accessible research? hashtag#ORW2026