The Robust Bayesian Meta-Analysis package got updated with additional vignettes explaining how to perform Bayesian model-averaged publication bias-adjusted
- multilevel meta-analysis (cran.r-project.org/web/packages...)
- multilevel meta-regression (cran.r-project.org/web/packages...)
“Second, I don’t actually read a lot of different people’s commentaries on LLMs, so my comments may be entirely unoriginal” should replace the “to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to…” in publications
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.
That business model existed before AI
I had the same thing, but they rescinded their decision when I filed a complaint.
It's been a week, but we left inspired after #PSE8 in Leiden.
Thanks to all who participated in our mentor-mentee lunch! Hopefully you all had interesting conversations, and made new connections.
ECR and want to see more of PYMS? Sign up for the mailing list: tinyurl.com/3mkn6f2a
Now that the #rstats pipe wars have flared up again, it's useful to remember what the pipe (base or magrittr) was designed for, and what it was never meant to do. 🧵
1 / 7
> save time by telling AI to write your code
> use that time to force AI to simplify the convoluted crap it spits out
Does anyone have experience with CADIMA for screening articles? www.cadima.info I’d be interested in hearing thoughts, especially if you can compare it to rayyan
#evidencesynthesis #systematicreview
Rip
Nice succinct pre-print from a stellar cast:
"The state and status of theory in psychological science"
osf.io/preprints/ps...
Call for Submissions for the Theory Methods Conference 2026, September 30-October 2! theorymethodssociety.org/conference.h...
We invite you to:
1) Submit your proposal: edu.nl/mj9x6
2) Invite your colleagues/lab/(PhD) students, and encourage them to submit
3) Share this post
What's next?
Let's try to unify the field a bit more.
We're already taking a step into the future with the CO-IND (Cognition and Intellectual Disability) project. 37 groups in 23 countries using the same basic research protocol. Lots of opportunities ahead.
coind-project.github.io
First study from my PhD project is now published. It has been overwhelming, but extremely insightful! 👇🏻
Sounds like you need to create a new RoB tool…
Not only is it hard to estimate how much it biases the estimate, but there’s little agreement or guidance on what counts as good vs bad practice for the analytical questions. Independent reviewers can differ on whether a meta-analysis is well done and on how much that matters.
Amazing
MARS is a reporting guideline, and doesn’t even strictly mandate study quality assessment:
“Assessment of study quality
o If a study quality scale was employed, a description of criteria and the
procedures for application
o If study design features were coded, what these were”
Do these reviews report any conducting guidelines they followed?
If the biggest concern is being sued, coming from both the authors and the journals, wouldn’t it be better to put effort into making safer workflows that allow sharing this data? If the bottleneck is avoiding lawsuits, I doubt meta-scientists will care about hypocrisy.
New paper, on a worrying trend in meta-science: the practice of anonymising datasets on, e.g., published articles. We argue that this is at odds with norms established in research synthesis, explore arguments for anonymisation, provide counterpoints, and demonstrate implications and epistemic costs.
But why does new knowledge = significant findings?
Neil Nelson will give the first keynote of the day, about finding lies in the work of scientists. He argues we need to be able to detect what is not true when we interact with the scientific literature. #PSE8
As of today, on the @pci-regreports.bsky.social home page, you will find my name among amazing researchers who have been a real inspiration at different stages of my researcher journey.
I'm so grateful for this opportunity 🙏
I really enjoy the recommender role & I'm ready to take things up a notch
I think some of these points miss the mark. Moreso, I'm concerned that they'll be used by others to smuggle hidden moderators debates back into psychology.
🧵
www.bps.org.uk/psychologist...
Next step is charging you extra to stop them from editing your figures
I understand it less
“Research cycle” leading from preregistration to review: Preregistration "ugh this is so annoying I can't wait to start reviewing" Review "ugh this is so annoying I can't wait to start planning a new review"
Working on a new research cycle for my dissertation
I can understand that citation databases want to limit number of results you can export at once, but setting that number to a 100 is diabolical
Norm Macdonald would have a blast with this one