Adrien Fillon

This has been many years in the making. We wanted to do it right—not simply get it done.

Our goal was to contribute, however modestly, to an academia that genuinely strives for inclusivity.

May the AWoP—small as the step may be—help move academia toward greater inclusion. 🤝🫂🌈🍉🏳️‍⚧️✊⚖️♿🦮🌐

Update your syllabus and stay on the frontier - it will increase your students’ wages. Epic work by my colleagues @barbarabiasi.com and @profsongma.bsky.social #linkoftheday

www.barbarabiasi.com/uploads/1/0/...

QUI AURAIT PU PRÉDIRE ?!

new paper by Sean Westwood:

With current technology, it is impossible to tell whether survey respondents are real or bots. Among other things, makes it easy for bad actors to manipulate outcomes. No good news here for the future of online-based survey research

A Researcher Made an AI That Completely Breaks the Online Surveys Scientists Rely On We can no longer trust that survey responses are coming from real people.”

We can no longer trust that survey responses are coming from real people.”

Fascinating (and important to many fields of study).

Link to PNAS paper is in 2/2.

1/2

Calibrating scientific skepticism – a wider look at the field of transgenerational epigenetics I recently wrote a blogpost examining the supposed evidence for transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (TGEI) in hu...

Calibrating scientific skepticism www.wiringthebrain.com/2018/07/cali... - I wrote this a few years ago in relation to claims of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans, but the issues relate equally to the kind of microbiome studies we assess in the paper linked below...

Nouvel épisode sur le podcast Nota Bene sur Lovecraft, son histoire, et son univers. On me voit géant, vert, en train de sourire, avec des tentacules à la place des mains. Je suis entouré de fumée et d'éclairs, et on peut voir face à moi de dos une silhouette humaine en noir. On peut lire en bas "Cthulhu".

Oyez, oyez, fans de science-fiction, de fantastique, et de fantasy ! 
Dès maintenant, et ce sur toutes les plateformes de podcast, vous pouvez aller écouter mon épisode dédié à Lovecraft et son histoire !
Bonne écoute !
https://podcasts.apple.com/fr/podcast/nota-bene/id1573434643

Transparent and comprehensive statistical reporting is critical for ensuring the credibility, reproducibility, and interpretability of psychological research. This paper offers a structured set of guidelines for reporting statistical analyses in quantitative psychology, emphasizing clarity at both the planning and results stages. Drawing on established recommendations and emerging best practices, we outline key decisions related to hypothesis formulation, sample size justification, preregistration, outlier and missing data handling, statistical model specification, and the interpretation of inferential outcomes. We address considerations across frequentist and Bayesian frameworks and fixed as well as sequential research designs, including guidance on effect size reporting, equivalence testing, and the appropriate treatment of null results. To facilitate implementation of these recommendations, we provide the Transparent Statistical Reporting in Psychology (TSRP) Checklist that researchers can use to systematically evaluate and improve their statistical reporting practices (https://osf.io/t2zpq/). In addition, we provide a curated list of freely available tools, packages, and functions that researchers can use to implement transparent reporting practices in their own analyses to bridge the gap between theory and practice. To illustrate the practical application of these principles, we provide a side-by-side comparison of insufficient versus best-practice reporting using a hypothetical cognitive psychology study. By adopting transparent reporting standards, researchers can improve the robustness of individual studies and facilitate cumulative scientific progress through more reliable meta-analyses and research syntheses.

Our paper on improving statistical reporting in psychology is now online 🎉

As a part of this paper, we also created the Transparent Statistical Reporting in Psychology checklist, which researchers can use to improve their statistical reporting practices

www.nature.com/articles/s44...

J’avais écrit ça sur cette question uneheuredepeine.blogspot.com/2019/02/le-m... (prière de lire jusqu’à la fin avant de m’engueuler ok ?)

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.

Time, space, memory and brain–body rhythms - Nature Reviews Neuroscience Understanding how the brain represents experienced time and how representations of space and time are integrated to form episodic memories has been a goal of much neuroscientific research. In this Per...

www.nature.com/articles/s41...

A quick (1000 words) read to enjoy with your morning coffee or afternoon tea:

"Psychology wants to stay WEIRD, not go WILD"

Why hasn't psychology diversified it samples, methods, theories, etc.? Because it doesn't want to. osf.io/preprints/ps...

What is the most profitable industry in the world, this side of the law? Not oil, not IT, not pharma.

It's *scientific publishing*.

We call this the Drain of Scientific Publishing.

Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Background: doi.org/10.1162/qss_...

Thread @markhanson.fediscience.org.ap.brid.gy 👇

The observed smallest worthwhile difference in this study "means that the current 15% antidepressant benefit over no treatment was sufficient for 1 in 3 people to accept antidepressants given the burdens, but 2 in 3 expected greater treatment benefits."

Results from study of mental health in 92 countries (n>53,000): People are not doing well.

- U-shape for age is gone: Young adults lowest health, highest illness
- Education still matters (a lot)
- 45% of older people live alone
- Hybrid work > 100% remote or in-person

Preprint: osf.io/3jyda_v1

Experimental participants to us

Who cares about supplementary materials?

Is there any research activity less stimulating than checking these endless, messy files?

Unfortunately, blind spots rarely bode well for science.

Two new papers from the lab on research practices in security & privacy research: 1) Reliability of measures and the use of Cronbach's α osf.io/preprints/ps..., 2) Practices around retraction and correction notices by ACM and IEEE (osf.io/preprints/ps...)

A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year.

A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision.

A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year.

The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.

We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...

This is one of the most remarkable academic debacles I've ever seen.

A large RCT got published in BMJ. There are currently 44 Pubpeer comments, mostly about the data, including...well. Read for yourself.
pubpeer.com/publications...

What happens when a lottery determines which proposals for third-party funding get reviewed?

Details here (#OpenAccess and fresh off the press): doi.org/10.1038/s414...

I strongly recommend @hugoreasoning.bsky.social's book "Not Born Yesterday" if you've been exposed to too much social psychology about irrationality in your youth. press.princeton.edu/books/hardco...

Great introduction to robust standard errors; a technique that psychologists should use much, much more!

In case you didn't see this, @irisvanrooij.bsky.social posted a brief explainer on all the varied uses of the term "AI."

bsky.app/profile/iris...

TL;DR: Even beyond industry hype-based-ambiguities it can mean so many things. The image is of a table of many of the meanings.

Doubling of the global freshwater footprint of material production over two decades | Request PDF Request PDF | Doubling of the global freshwater footprint of material production over two decades | Producing essential, widely used materials such as steel, cement, paper, plastics and rubber require...

"Doubling of the global freshwater footprint of material production over two decades" — Read it on @ResearchGate: www.researchgate.net/publication/...

Reading on a smartphone affects sigh generation, brain activity, and comprehension - Scientific Reports Scientific Reports - Reading on a smartphone affects sigh generation, brain activity, and comprehension

www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Unlike the general *biological* Theory of Evolution, evolutionary psychology doesn’t even have fossils to counter criticism of unfalsifiability.

But @williamcostello.bsky.social et al put up a robust defence of the falsifiability and testability of its hypotheses:

buff.ly/I9fS5nf

1/2

Editorial by @astridchevance.bsky.social on censorship in academia.

Worth your time.

#AcademicSky #PsychSciSky 🧪

www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

Journal impact factors still exert ‘undue influence’ ‘Lack of alternatives’ blamed as majority of researchers admit they rely on journal prestige metrics to make decisions on grants and hiring

Journal impact factors still exert ‘undue influence’

‘Lack of alternatives’ blamed as majority of researchers admit they rely on journal prestige metrics to make decisions on grants and hiring

#ResearchIntegrity #WCRI2026 #WCRI #AcademicPublishing

www.timeshighereducation.com/news/journal...