Sophia Crüwell

Preregistrations without Code do not Prevent P-Hacking: You can increase your chances for a significant finding in the absence of real effects even with correlations and t test despite having preregistered your hypothesis (e.g., simply changing arguments in the functions).

doi.org/10.31222/osf...

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 🥳

Congratulations to @simine.com well deserved winner of the Einstein Foundation Individual Award for Promoting Quality in Research 2025 🎉 www.einsteinfoundation.de/en/media/pre...

Just saw someone described as an "ontologist" and now I want Clinical Ontologist to be a job title.

Welcome to the Department of Clinical Ontology. Let's go over your chart. I see that you are. Are you still as you were or are you otherwise? For your case of being, I prescribe becoming.

Lisa Bero's first slide at #AIMOS2025 on the evidence base weakening because of commercial influence on research, e.g. false claims of efficacy #metascience

Open Source Power We have to talk about open source licensing.

"That's a problem for me. You see, I wanna make my software freely available to everyone in the world except those guys specifically. That very particular bunch of autocratic corpo-states are actively destroying the world I'm trying to pro-socially enrich as a commoner."

Why did my brain automatically read that quote in @lakens.bsky.social’s voice 😅

The four-fold drain of scientific publishing: Money, Time, Trust, and Control.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk 🎤

If you’ve read this far and still need convincing, please check out our preprint arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820 and this infographic: doi.org/10.5281/zeno...
10/10

We’re asking research funders & universities to step up because together, they have the leverage - and frankly, the responsibility - to stop the drain and redirect billions currently flowing to commercial publishers 💸 back into community-owned systems that serve science, not profit.
9/n

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/...

Play a little game and choose the right icon for each role in science.

Play our CRediT Roles icon game/survey, and help make scientific authorship clearer and more accessible!
creditsurvey.sciux.org

#OpenScience #ScienceUX

Can metadata curation count as experimental practice? We answer in this new paper on data reanalysis in #plant #spacebiology, a major outcome of #PHIL_OS & Paola Castaño‘s collaboration w NASA’s open data team! #philsci, #data, #experimentation, #modelling, #ISS. OA version: doi.org/10.1016/j.sh...

cannot believe on some level I & my colleagues have turned the tide on this, but also it was in some senses inevitable as why not! Humans can do anything; we still have a way to go however of course, but:

banning AI in the classroom should be as uncontroversial as banning calculators in early maths

Three global experts discuss ‘Practical Open Access for Everyone’ Oct. 23 online | Penn State University Penn State University Libraries will host three of the world’s foremost experts on the subject of open access during a public online panel discussion, “We Are Enough: Practical Open Access for Everyon...

Reminder about next week's online panel.

www.psu.edu/news/univers...

ReplicationResearch.org is now open for submissions!

Submit replications and reproductions from many different fields, as well as conceptual contributions. With diamond OA, open and citable peer review reports, and reproducibility checks, we push the boundaries of open and fair publishing.

"The Printing Press Democratized Knowledge": When Slogans Masquerade as History — Sonja Drimmer The phrase is said so frequently it seems, like the mechanism it celebrates, to mechanically replicate itself.  It's become a favorite catchphrase among tech boosters of any sort (see my post on...

really nice piece on this btw from @sonjadrimmer.bsky.social sonjadrimmer.com/blog-1/2025/...

📣 “Peer Review and its Diversification” Webinars
15-16 October 2025

👉 Register for the Zoom link: forms.gle/1R4Y3d33W8bQ...

📄 Full programme: docs.google.com/document/d/1...

Cover page of Guest, O., & van Rooij, I. (2025, October 4). Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Psychologists. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkrgj_v1

Table 1 Guest, O., & van Rooij, I. (2025, October 4). Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Psychologists. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkrgj_v1

Table 2 Guest, O., & van Rooij, I. (2025, October 4). Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Psychologists. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkrgj_v1

New preprint 🌟 Psychology is core to cognitive science, and so it is vital we preserve it from harmful frames. @irisvanrooij.bsky.social & I use our psych and computer science expertise to analyse and craft:

Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Psychologists. doi.org/10.31234/osf...

🧵 1/

The Authorship Integrity Toolkit - UK Research Integrity Office The Authorship Integrity Toolkit Practical resources to support responsible authorship in research UKRIO is pleased to present the Authorship Integrity Toolkit – a new collection of resources to help ...

UKRIO @ukrio.bsky.social is introducing an Authorship Integrity Toolkit:
a set of practical, adaptable resources designed to support both individual researcher contributors in their day-to-day practice and organisations in developing policies and managing projects.
ukrio.org/resources/th...

🔍 Have we solved the replication crisis?

Join us for an IGOR panel discussion on the state of Open Science in biological psychology more than a decade after the crisis first hit.

📅 Friday, 10 Oct | 10:00–11:00 CET
💻 Online (contact us for the link)

#OpenScience #neuroskyence #academicsky

[1/3]

Our fragmentation paper is now finally out! I put some of the dumb quips that didn't make the cut in the alt texts.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

People always ask me : “Cristi, how do you manage parenting a baby while going up for tenure?”

It’s easy. The secret is *flow-based-scheduling*. Here are its three core strategies for new academic parents:

Sleep when the baby sleeps
Cry when the baby cries
Publish when the baby publishes

Details | Events | University of Exeter

This is a link to a hybrid book launch for the megavolume Methods in Philosophy of Science edited by the amazing @phieveigl.bsky.social and @adrian-currie.bsky.social Chapter 5 is mine with @inkerikoskinen.bsky.social The book will become open access in July 2026: mitpress.mit.edu/978026255224...

This only happens to you once

I like this: “mandates are not just rules, they are opportunities for equity in open access”, in the @oaspa.bsky.social poster presentation of Vrushali Dandawate from @doaj.bsky.social #OASPA2025

I am quite excited to share a new preprint on the prospects for a 'metaphilosophy of science'—a second-order inquiry into the concepts, assumptions, aims, and methods that underpin philosophy of science itself. 👇📃 philsci-archive.pitt.edu/26661/ 1/3 #philsci #philsky #HPS #HPbio #metaphilosophy

A quick reminder to all those who care about open research to consider joining us for the FOR2026 Conference in the Future of Open Research at the Technical University of Munich in May 4-6, 2026! Deadline for paper and poster proposals: 30 September

opensciencestudies.eu/for-2026-con...

Join our upcoming webinars “Peer Review and its Diversification”!

📅 15-16 October 2025 on Zoom

👉 Registration: forms.gle/1R4Y3d33W8bQ...

📄 Full programme: docs.google.com/document/d/1...

#PeerReview #PeerReviewWeek #PRW2025 #metasci #academicsky

The new TOC from academia dot edu. By creating an Account with Academia.edu, you grant us a worldwide, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license, permission, and consent for Academia.edu to use your Member Content and your personal information (including, but not limited to, your name, voice, signature, photograph, likeness, city, institutional affiliations, citations, mentions, publications, and areas of interest) in any manner, including for the purpose of advertising, selling, or soliciting the use or purchase of Academia.edu's Services.

If you’re on academia dot edu, let me suggest that you strongly consider deleting your account.