Google Scholar when touting my own achievements, Scopus/WoS when evaluating others.

Just wrote a new blogpost trying to summarize my thoughts on the question of how and whether to use AI for research in psychology and cognitive science: babieslearninglanguage.blogspot.com/2026/04/usin...

Valuing the Process vs. the Product in Research On reasonable resistance to using GenAI in research

Nice one, Mike! I very much agree, and I think you are at least partially tapping into the process/product distinction that I made here. As always, it all depends. getsyeducated.substack.com/p/valuing-th...

I like the one of you talking

Ah yes, SRA, where the replication crisis never happened and "open science" is only used as an insult.

Good news, writing commentaries is pretty much all I do these days.

Ok, this is actually hilarious. I took a closer look and noticed that while the article trashes preprints for lack of review, they cite NINE blog posts written by one of the authors. Unbelievable.

"Preprinting Does Not Meet Science’s Duty of Care Responsibility to Society" raises questions such as "why do they talk of science as a monolithic thing but only discuss a narrow corner of it?" and "what the hell?" journal.trialanderror.org/pub/preprint...

A another figure that makes no sense, celestial mediation and such.

What's the problem?

A figure so bizarre and wrong that it cannot be described

Related, if you have not seen it, this classic is a turducken of practices tailored-made to drive you mad doi.org/10.1098/rspb...

Haven't read any of them in a while, but this one is probably a good starting point because it is more comprehensive than most: doi.org/10.1177/0170..., and this comment from McSweeney: doi.org/10.1108/IMR-.... This paper of his is the all time classic on national culture: doi.org/10.1177/0018...

This has been discussed in the cross-cultural literature repeatedly, and for decades, and of course completely ignored by those who simply don't care.

Very nice project! As noted in the paper, the results could possibly stem from completing so many relationship items together. Using a planned missingness design with non-relationship items/scales interspersed would be a cool follow-up.

Predicting relationship quality with itself? A single general factor captures most of the variance across 34 common relationship measures In relationship science, researchers have generated a wide array of constructs and corresponding self-report measures to characterize, explain, and predict relationship quality – the foremost studied ...

New paper, out this week in PLOS One, suggests that most close relationship self-report measures are primarily capturing relationship quality 🧵
journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...

We are actively working on it. We have instituted a department policy that has a few general details and then mandates that each training area must develop its own policy, with specific language pertaining to milestones (FYP, prelims, etc.). So far, areas vary A LOT in their approach.

A workflow for the review process of Registered Reports. Used with permission from the Center for Open Science under CC BY 4.0.

🚨 Researchers, take note! Animal Biology now publishes Registered Reports! 🐒

💡 Peer review happens before results are collected. Studies are judged on quality & rigour, not “significant” outcomes.

No Kings #TwinCities

I got you. Sending a DM.

CDEMP Special Section CFP - Open Science Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology (CDEMP) Call for Papers Special Section on Transparency, Credibility, and Accountability in Context: Open Science as Psychological Inquiry in Ethnic M...

📢 CFP: Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology

Special Section: Open Science in Multicultural Psychology

Empirical & conceptual work welcome across quant, qual, mixed & CBPR approaches, including supportive & critical perspectives

📅 LOI due May 15, 2026
🔗 tinyurl.com/CDEMP-OpenSc...

I don't see the problem here. Having anything less than 30 studies in a single article puts one at risk of getting desk rejected at JPSP for insufficient contribution.

Preference for chocolate over feces at d = 4.52 is also a useful referent, doi.org/10.1177/0956...

Hilgard’s maximum positive control paper doi.org/10.1016/j.je...

It is a great paper, and to my knowledge there has been no meaningful rejoinder. It seems to be a bit of a "genre killer" for the type of paper it evaluates.

Sage Journals: Discover world-class research Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

I finally gave "Is open science neoliberal?" by @uyguntunc.bsky.social @mntunc.bsky.social and Eper a close read. It made sense of critiques that did not resonate w/ how I understand the reform movement.

Are there rejoinders defending the neoliberal attribution or challenging this description?

The say “I am alive” comic

I’m reminded of this comic almost every time I check LinkedIn

Empirically, yes, but before that there were several purely verbal defenses. This is another one. doi.org/10.1177/1745...

One of the classic instances of the latter is Stroebe & Strack (2014). They did not use the term "hidden moderator," as I believe that was applied later by people criticizing the argument. doi.org/10.1177/1745...

It seems that you are living in an antiquated world filled with needless suffering and catastrophic wrongness.

bsky.app/profile/psya...

Interesting. My session was unfortunately at the same time. I was interested to hear the quality of the arguments, but this suggests I didn't miss much...