Psychiatry journals have considerably higher impact factor than psychology so the tail will also have higher h-index I reckon.

gotcha, thanks!

Yeah .. do you have a higher res version (torvon@gmail.com) plis :)

This is great, thanks

Our paper on 13 methods for detecting careless responding in EMA has been accepted by Psychological Methods. Grateful to have collaborated with this wonderful team of researchers🍀(final post-print: osf.io/preprints/ps...).

There is a crow. You should pay more attention.

Don't be shy to take on a little two-week side project. These five months will be the most precious three years of your academic journey.

7/
In other words: not only do silicon samples choices seem to not generalise across different data features of evaluation (i.e., Study 1's finding), but they also appear not to generalise in performance on similar tasks across different substantive domains.

Amazing work. This result is particularly convincing to me. Well done!

1/
"Silicon samples" are becoming more and more common in research and polling.

One problem: depending on the analytic decisions made, you can basically get these samples to show any effect you want.

The updated version of this preprint is now online!

THREAD🧵

arxiv.org/abs/2509.13397

Reminder: If researchers find Cohen's d = 6, no they didn't.

trustworthy.scientific.claims/posts/if-res...

1. The paper with the implausibly large effects of Omega-3 fatty acids on mental health was now retracted. A little thread on the process where @ianhussey.mmmdata.io and I was involved.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

Highly recommended: what a brilliant opportunity to work with Ian and Ze!

100%, that I don't think would be needed any longer because there would be so much fewer reviews to perform.

Michel is right, and it may well be a reason to no longer disclose publically that you've applied. Horrifying, like a pre-existing condition when switching health care provider in many countries.

Bit like healthcare where you need to disclose pre-existing conditions. "So Dr Nivard ... your CV looks great and all, but would you care to disclose to us if you recently applied for an ERC and failed?"

I think the ERC should just skip much of the extremely costly & expensive reviews to give out many more grants.

Invest into solid triage to remove the bottom 50% in terms of quality (with reasonably inter rater reliability), then lottery.

It's a bit like conducting a meta analysis, carrying out funnel plots and risk of bias analyses, and only mentioning them in the limitations rather than abstract and results. This, luckily, would not be consider sufficiently transparent in most journals today.

That's totally ok and normal of course (I very much struggled with the 3k limit for my recent Jama Psychiatry paper). But FWIW, I think authors should disclose if blinding fails in abstract and results (it's just half a sentence).

.. answer to every question, but I've since really come around to dose response relationship studies, multibaseline designs, and other crafty ways to interrogate treatments where blinding is very difficult. None are perfect, and in the end we need to aggregate.

3) "I would be curious - how would you study psychedelic treatments? Which study designs would you recommend considering the evident blinding difficulties?"

Our 2023 paper makes some recommendations to this regard. When I started teaching clinical trial design in 2018, I thought RCTs are the ..

2) You're technically right that functional unblinding is "very explicitly discussed in the manuscript".

It is not mentioned in the abstract. It is not mentioned in the results (you only refer to supplementary). It is only mentioned in the limitations. I don't think this is sufficient.

... the title and abstract of the paper should say that this is an RCT, and only the limitations should mention it isn't.

Hi Lea!

1) Regarding your point on triple blind: I think studies should be named not my the goals or wishes authors have, but what the study actually is. Eg if the authors wish to carry out an RCT but for some reason there is no randomization or control group, I don't think that ...

Colette in an off white monochrome outfit seated in the E&W hearing room.

well dorks...I'm in the HOUSE! (At the Education and Workforce hearing of RFK Jr.)

And we are LIVE SKEETING!

(p.s. we met someone in the wild who come to our Virtual Rally on 3/28!)

What do you mean

It's like calling your study an RCT when you don't have a control group, which also happened in psychedelic science, also in Jama Psychiatry.

We wrote a letter to the editor and they changed the study title and description as a response.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...

The study / authors actually deserve praise for assessing and reporting functional unblinding so carefully, but I don't understand why why as a field are ok with such studies then being called double or triple blind when they just literally aren't.

Psilocybin in Treatment-Resistant Major Depression This randomized clinical trial investigates the efficacy and safety of psilocybin, 25 mg, with adjunct psychotherapy in treatment-resistance major depression.

Bc I see this recent "triple blind" psilocybin study discussed again, pls keep in mind that this was essentially an open label study (86% in 25mg group correctly guessed their group allocation), with all the validity problems that come with open label studies.

jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...

Applying for an ERC grant in the 2027 competitions: what you need to know The ERC plans to launch the grant competitions under its 2027 Work Programme between July 2026 and June 2027, with the calls for proposals introducing several changes to the eligibility rules for appl...

I don’t know if you saw the MASSIVE news announced by @erc.europa.eu today: from now on, if you get a B at step 1 you are eligible to apply at N+3(!!!) years. Say you got a B in STG2026 step 1, you thought you could apply in STG2028, but no: only in STG2029! erc.europa.eu/news-events/...