More evidence of the pervasiveness of publication bias. Article:

"Publication Bias in Coronary Artery Disease Clinical Trials: A Bibliometric Review" pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41999643/
"The publication rate for positive studies was 92%, whereas for negative studies it was 50% (P<0.001)."

National Open Science Festival, 14 October 2026, TU Delft

Are you working on open science and eager to share your work with the wider community, engage in dialogue, or spark new collaborations?

Mark your calendar: the call for contributions to the 2026 Open Science Festival will open late May.

💡https://opensciencefestival.nl/pre-announcement-2026

Offering scientists cash to spot errors in published papers doesn’t work The ERROR project tried enticing reviewers with payments. Now, it’s launching a journal—and promising papers as rewards

www.science.org/content/arti...

Join this event today: 7p GMT+2, 6p GMT+1, 1p ET, 10a PT.

Is this a thing? I didn’t get one!

Arguing with economists: the case for preregistration At a recent economics conference there was a long discussion on preregistration where we heard questions and comments from ~20 different people at varying levels of seniority.

Recently, I got quite frustrated listening to a large group of economists discussing preregistration and pre analysis plans. So, I've channelled that into an argument for why they should be preregistering their work whenever performing confirmatory research

kdoroc.substack.com/p/arguing-wi...

Bessent's favorite Costner movie is Waterworld.

None of the projects directly answer those latter questions, though it does set the stage to generate hypotheses and pursue preliminary tests.

Descriptive research is even more undervalued than exploratory research, which itself is undervalued compared with its importance.

This excellent post implicitly highlights my primary purpose in organizing these replication studies--to *describe* what happens when we try to replicate the published literature. This descriptive evidence grounds conceptual debates about *why* we observe those rates, and what we "should" observe.

Is a 55% Replication Rate Too Low, Too High, or Just Right? Tyner et al.

Is a 55% replication rate too low, too high, or just right? Some thoughts on Tyner et al.’s (2026) recent study.

#MetaSci #PhilSci

When Being Right Less Than Half the Time Is … Fine Let’s say you do a job that involves making predictions about human behavior — you manage money, you sell things, you write opinion columns. Just less than half of your predictions turn out to be more...

"the replication findings reinforce lessons that I have slowly been learning over the years ...'the issue needing to be solved is overconfidence..We tend to act as if published findings are replicable without actually assessing whether they are.'”

www.bloomberg.com/opinion/arti...

Brilliant. (Most) Everyone agrees:

* Democratic socialist is an epithet devoid of meaning

* US politics is terrible

He provides meaning to democratic socialism, and frames it as the solution to the terrible system.

Prompts the citizen to ask: Those saying dem. socialism is bad meant this?

"If you can't solve the smallest task in someone's life, why would they ever trust you to solve the biggest one?"

Mamdani's revival of early 20th century "sewer socialism" here is the inverse of Guiliani's "broken windows" approach.

Starting small to do big things, but this time, they're good.

Nature recently published massive studies on the credibility of social science. We — the Norwegian co-authors on the robustness-paper, Gerit Pfuhl, @oysteinhernaes.bsky.social, @maxkorbmacher.bsky.social, and me — wrote an opinion piece about it (in Norwegian): www.forskersonen.no/forskning-kr...

Can Science Predict When a Study Won’t Hold Up?

#SCORE was a large-scale, multi-method research initiative to improve assessment of scientific credibility in the social behavioral sciences. Primary outcomes & outputs are now available at @nature.com and @cos.io
www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/s...
@carlzimmer.com
cc: @briannosek.bsky.social

Look at the women at NASA.

They are the ones pushing the boundaries of science, solving problems most people can’t even understand, and carrying this country forward, while our politicians right now posture and stumble through talking points.

And they are doing it all with joy.👇

Humanity did that. Science did that. Publicly-funded research did that. Excellent universities did that. Diversity did that. International cooperation did that.

Artemis II is a perfect example of what we can do at our best.

Welcome home, Integrity crew!

Where is Ed Harris? Shouldn’t he be staring at the big screen with his arms folded looking concerned?

A week ago, @nature.com published a very special issue on reliable research in the social and behavioral sciences. It features four papers that look at reproducibility, robustness and replicability and represents an amazing amount of work. Check it out here: www.nature.com/immersive/d4...

Tim Errington and Abel Brodeur will be on Science Friday today talking about the reproducibility, robustness, and replicability projects in the social and behavioral sciences.

Listen live at 2p ET, or at the website after:

www.sciencefriday.com

Of all the annoying AI generated marketing solicitations, my least favorite is the one in which they send a fake thread of prior attempts to reach me and passively aggressively trying to get me to respond.

Marking as spam and blocking feels insufficient for this genre.

Yes, for the narrow case of showing that it was prespecified. For broader interests in preservation and discoverability, registration is better practice.

[1] In a recent fraud relevant case, by not registering the user had control to make the project private again, and did so (can also delete it entirely).

[2] Forward looking, we are probably going to retire the ability to make things public w/out registering to address [1] and related issues.

Interested in the latest evidence on reproducibility across social and behavioral research? 📑
Don’t miss this opportunity to learn from these researchers and large-scale initiatives shaping the future of open science.

Lots of Social Science Didn’t Replicate. Does That Mean It’s Bunk? Scholars are debating the results of an effort to assess hundreds of papers’ credibility. Where some see failure and cause for urgent reform, others see reason for hope.

Thoughtful comments from several scholars about what SCORE findings do and do not mean in this Chronicle piece.

[Soft paywall - just need to create a free account.]

www.chronicle.com/article/lots...

Reproducibility and robustness of economics and political science research - Nature Robustness checks and reproduction of analyses with existing and updated data based on 110 articles in economics and political science journals with data and code-sharing requirements found high levels of robustness and reproducibility and determined that robustness was not dependent on author characteristics or data availability.

Nature research paper: Reproducibility and robustness of economics and political science research
go.nature.com/3QdKP93

Happy to have played a very minor role in this recent work on analytical robustness by @balazsaczel.bsky.social @briannosek.bsky.social and many other colleagues: www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Three recent papers examined reproducibility of a large sample of findings. Join this webinar to discuss them and explore where the findings converge and differ.

1. SCORE: www.nature.com/articles/s41...
2. I4R: www.nature.com/articles/s41...
3. Meta-Rep: royalsocietypublishing.org/rsos/article...

NOW: B52 bombers are literally in the air on their way to Iran and hundreds of thousands of Iranians are in the streets waving flags and surrounding bridges & power plants.

Difficult to imagine this has any precedent in modern warfare.

(🎥 Al Jazeera)