Marcello Solinas

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...

The psychedelic phenethylamine 25C-NBF, a selective 5-HT2A agonist, shows psychoplastogenic properties and rapid antidepressant effects in male rodents - Molecular Psychiatry Molecular Psychiatry - The psychedelic phenethylamine 25C-NBF, a selective 5-HT2A agonist, shows psychoplastogenic properties and rapid antidepressant effects in male rodents

Our new study characterizes 25C-NBF as a selective 5-HT2A agonist with psychoplastogenic and rapid antidepressant-like effects in rodents. So excited to see this work published in Molecular Psychiatry! Read it here: www.nature.com/articles/s41...

💯 agree with this and their conclusions 👇

If funders wanted to make a huge positive impact on scientific practice, they would mandate that all publications appear first as registered reports, that APCs are only paid for RRs, and that grant applications only require preliminary data for RR sample size determination / power analysis.

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/...

Harvard Gazette: Gazette: “You are the mother of two In ten years you have produced three novels and two short-story collections. Can you talk about your process and how you manage work and family?” Groff: “I understand that this is a question of vital importance to a lot of people, particularly to other mothers who are artists trying to get their work done, and know that I feel for everyone in the struggle. But until I see a male writer asked that question, I am going to respectfully decline to answer it.”

🗣️ Edward Chang | Hertie Foundation Plenary Lecture

On 10 July at #FENS2026, Prof. Edward Chang (UCSF) will take us into the neural basis of speech, movement, emotion, and learning.

Meet all the #FENS2026 speakers 👉 https://loom.ly/Q_m95o8

Designing allosteric modulators to change GPCR G protein subtype selectivity - Nature Studies of the G-protein-coupled receptor NTSR1 show that the G protein selectivity of this receptor can be modified by small molecules, enabling the design of drugs that work by switching receptor su...

Now online @nature.com!

Want to change the consequences of receptor activation?

Small molecules binding the GPCR-transducer interface change G protein subtype preference in predictable ways, enabling rational drug design 💥

So many new possibilities! 🧪🧠🟦

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

🧵👇

Funny not funny #AIEthics

Mark is so right about this.

Postdoctoral Research Position University of California, Los Angeles is hiring. Apply now!

🚨 Please RT!
We’re recruiting a motivated postdoc to dissect the neurocircuits of affective pain.
Expertise in behavioral models of pain/SUDs, stereotaxy, microscopy, opto/chemogenetics, or fiber photometry encouraged.
Apply 👉 recruit.apo.ucla.edu/JPF10647

#Neuroscience #Postdoc

The Annotated Hodgkin and Huxley The first annotated edition of the scientific papers that created the foundation of modern neuroscience and physiology

This one's on my list for this year:

press.princeton.edu/books/paperb...

Everything would be much simpler/cheaper/efficient if scientists could apply for funding by just sending their CV to the funder. If the funder likes what's on the CV, they send money. Instead of progress reports, the scientist just sends an updated CV, and the funder can decide whether to give more.

Bravo le comité Nobel pour ce choix Ô combien pacifique 👏

Mais quel aveuglement, quel égarement!

2/2

This is amazing and moves scientific publishing into the modern age in a MAJOR way. @qedscience.bsky.social by @odedrechavi.bsky.social and team, and planyourscience.com by @kordinglab.bsky.social, are my gamechanging life-hack recommendations for all scientists!

Really interesting work by Bakhurin and colleagues challenging the reward prediction error hypothesis of dopamine:
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
I love this figure which both echoes and undermines the famous figure from Schultz et al. (1997).

Really excited to have this paper accepted for publication now in @natcomms.nature.com - stay tuned for the final version and huge congrats to @margestelzner.bsky.social!!!!

"Israel will be able to confront its crimes only if it is forced to ... not thanks to a process of introspection. ... For that to happen, the US and European powers will have to snap out of their own apparent denial of what they surely know is happening on the ground."

- Omer Bartov

#veilleesr Aux origines de la liberté académique, de l’Allemagne aux États-Unis https://theconversation.com/aux-origines-de-la-liberte-academique-de-lallemagne-aux-etats-unis-256498

Let this be a motto for all of us, when we peer review:
“Review the manuscript in front of you, not the one you wish existed.”
@earlkmiller.bsky.social

Another absolutely astounding "gem" in the compact: abolish units that "belittle" conservative ideas -- while doing it in the name of an "intellectually open campus" 😮‼️

😂 Amazing! apparently no sense of irony (or consistency) whatsoever! 😂

Also completely incompatible with First Amendment.

Sarò ingenuo io ma sono sempre stato dell'idea che se uno è contrario alla violenza, alla crudeltà e alle ingiustizie allora dovrebbe esserlo sempre, non selettivamente per simpatia o quando gli fa più comodo per suoi interessi personali. Altrimenti è pura ideologia, faziosità e ipocrisia.🤷🏻‍♂️

Rest in peace Jane Goodall, a true giant among scientists. Your breakthroughs into the secret lives of chimpanzees viewed through an anthropomorphic lens – without yet knowing that science had forbidden it – changed science forever, and with it how we see ourselves.

Yes

🎯

Un travail extrêmement impressionnant d'une équipe de l'IPP sur la taxation des très hauts revenus.

Il y a plein de choses à en tirer, mais cela (re)confirme que les ménages extrêmement fortunés contournent l'imposition individuelle sur le revenu en se servant des sociétés qu'ils contrôlent.

Amazing session at #EBPS2025 on sex differences in SUD, mood, & AD. @christinadalla.bsky.social organized a great group.

Congratulations @peppeganga.bsky.social !

This article is truly impressive, both for the significance of its findings and the enormous amount of work it represents!

Briefly, it demonstrates that the gut-brain vagal axis exerts a considerable influence on dopamine-dependent reward-related processes...

1/n

www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...

Banner for the event, purple background - showing the title: "Enhancing Peer Review with AI: Where should we draw the line?", and the photos of the 5 speakers - more info and registration here: https://www.enago.com/our-events/ai-in-peer-review-ethics-boundaries

Register now for a webinar discussion by Enago Academy
for #PeerReviewWeek, on 17 September, with
* Daniel Ucko @danielucko.bsky.social @apsphysics.bsky.social
* Patrick Starke - ImageTwinAI
* Elliot Lumb @research-signals.bsky.social
* Mary Miskin - EnagoAcademy
* and me
enago.com/our-events/a...

He’s going to spend 25% of his life to live 10% longer, isn’t he?

We need to teach opportunity cost more in our schools.