Lovely to see everyone coding away during the Paul Meehl Graduate School workshop on Cognitive Computational models paulmeehlschool.github.io/2026-03-10-c..., with visitors from Poland, Czech Republic, and Germany. Thanks to Leendert van Maanen and Dominik Bachmann for teaching it!
I indeed do not have a copy! I have pet sounds at home, but might need to keep a look out for this one as well!
It is a cannister from Kaikado I bought in their store in Kyoto, Japan, last year. It stores my coffee. One of my most prized possessions :)
www.kaikado.jp/english/
There is! Although this picture is the old set up. Lisa, I now have my own office, and the lab has a very luxurious huge space with 6 desks and some additional tables. You will see it next time you come over!
Junkie XL, Jurassic 5, Labi Siffre, and The Weepies!
Standing in line for Record Store Day in Rotterdam with some good coffee. The wait time (1.5 hours!) was well spent giving feedback on a paper that I am very excited about.
๐จ Out today: our Editorial in @jvertpaleo.bsky.social on an important issue in science - the reproducibility crisis in phylogenetic analyses.
In it, we analyze several years of editorial data to ask a simple question: are things improving?
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
We are inviting applications for a two-year postdoctoral position in a collaborative meta-science project on the effectiveness of data and code sharing policies in research-performing organizations. www.tue.nl/en/working-a...
I am all for using AI to automatically translate. The indeed improved epistemic diversity and is a good thing. But using it as the only source of writing, without inserting any idea....
Phd applications are also AI, but that is helpful, as it is easy to find the people you do not want to hire.
It matters because I think people who use AI to write bad papers should be fired, while people who write bad papers because they are incompetent should not be hired, but not fired.
The issue is that if you aren't smarter than AI, science doesn't need your papers. I can just prompt AI myself, especially as I can also write smarter prompts. So, people like this should get out of my peer review environment.
I could not identify a single original thought - everything was on the level that a dump AI would generate in a single prompt as 'write a paragaph on X'. You could kind of guess where AI copied info from (some from my textbook).
The first time a serious journal asks me to review a paper that is completely written by AI.
How do we deal with this? Is it fair to write 'this is either written by AI, or mirrors it's lack of original content'?
How do I deal with the 1% probability a human wrote it anyway?
Good blog post that perfectly voices the frustration early career researchers can have when they hear senior researchers discuss preregistration. The continuing lack of understanding among senior researchers who keep voicing the same misunderstandings *is* frustrating and embarrassing.
This project is part of the collaborative grant application @sajedehra.bsky.social described here: bsky.app/profile/saje.... You will be working with my team - do reach out to any current or past lab members to learn why this is a great environment to do metascientific research.
We are inviting applications for a two-year postdoctoral position in a collaborative meta-science project on the effectiveness of data and code sharing policies in research-performing organizations. www.tue.nl/en/working-a...
The problem with scientific organizations is that politically, you want them to be large to have influence, but scientifically, you have nothing in common with many of the members. You have to pick influence or shared scientific values. (I am not a member of any organization).
I am sure there is lot's of space for a different profile, which is good for epistemic diversity.
Important reminder why survey results examining the % of people who believe in conspiracies should not directly be interpreted as the % of people who believe in conspiracies. Respondents don't all answer seriously, so the news that 12 million people believe in lizard people is not accurate.
Psychologists unhappy with the American Psychological Association split off and created to Association for Psychological Science in 1988 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associa... This was very healthy for our discipline. Seems to me a similar split would be healthy for Sociology as well. @philipncohen.com
"comprehensive study pre-registrations or Registered Reports, which ensure peer reviewing of the study protocol and acceptance in principle before data collection and analysis, are a readily implementable measure that should be considered essential."
www.frontiersin.org/journals/neu...
According to the statisticians replying on other sites, no. They will mostly work on novel statistical procedures, examined through simulation studies, in my experience. But collecting some actual data will be enlightening.
Statisticians are trained in how to compute statistics, but not why to compute statistics. At least 10% of their training should be in philosophy of statistics. They should also spend 10 credits on their own empirical research project to understand how data is acually collected.
I have been doing this for 15 years, but I do not scale. Capturing my expertise in an automated tool will scale, and will improve science. You are focusing on producing crap, but we will catch even more crap as well.
AI is making my work so much better. Of course, low quality scientists, of which there are many, will produce more and faster low quality rubbish, but this is a timeless problem. But take our current work: We use AI to catch low quality research practices and tell people how to improve. >
Screen shot of section 1.1 of the report "vision for a new publication culture"
The governing body for 14 Dutch universities (UNL) has published a "Vision on Publication Culture" that is so inspiring and forward thinking. Worth a read for those trying to changes publishing and research assessment practices.
Take a read:
www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/files/public...
Time to plan your content submissions for @SORTEE2026
It is almost like the workshop has people attending who are able to reflect with some nuance and care on an important topic, instead of the typical bluesky extremism when it comes to AI ๐
His talk would totally work in a bar :) Knowing he had dreads only increases our similarity and liking ;)