This is news to me and very cool!

No shade on existing tools - the scope of their purpose is different.

Very much looking forward to hearing more.

The site has been up for weeks so it would be strange if it was a DNS propagation thing.

Interesting. It has https enforcement set up but that's pretty standard now. If anyone else has issues please say.

inspect.sr

This link doesn't work for you?

Many folk are surprised to discover thay Risk of Bias assessment tools tend not to interrogate the question “Did this study actually happen? And are its results trustworthy enough to believe?”

Jack’s Cochrane endorsed INSPECT-SR checks have done a lot to mainstream such Trustworthiness Assessment.

Very nice INSPECT-SR website containing the guidance and editable template, made by @ianhussey.mmmdata.io

inspect.sr

It’s also easier to accidentally delete or replace a document in a project (ruining your timestamp) than it is to delete a preregistration.

Yeah you could be right. I see it as few downsides (you can use the registration option where your only text is “see word doc”, and it’s only about 5 clicks) and potential upsides (others can’t make pseudo complaints that it’s not a “real” registration).

Unregistered projects are not immutable. Yes there’s an upload date so there’s some paper trail of the date, but if you want it to be prereg-like then register it, it will raise fewer questions.

I think if we have created god than praying is exactly what should be done.

I don’t think we could collect real from god to validate against, she almost never responds to reviewer requests or meta science surveys.

But what if it was? What if we have invented god and they know best

Time for this again

Fun facts

- The original study reported 23 IQ point gains
- Jordan Peterson tweeted about it (sort of)
- @jamiecummins.bsky.social new preregistered RCT shows null effects

A failure to find effects of relational operant training on scholastic aptitude of school children: A randomised controlled trial: https://osf.io/cauvz

Trend setter. Well done!

Opinion | It’s Called Silicon Sampling, and It’s Going to Ruin Public Opinion Polling

Very pleasantly surprised to see my recent preprint being discussed in this NYT article on silicon sampling and its implications for opinion polling. More forthcoming work on this coming soon!

(H/T @rohanalexander.bsky.social)
www.nytimes.com/2026/04/06/o...

I am nice to Claude and rude to you. What does that mean?

Don't miss out on new replications with the Zotero Replication Checker!

This is the current set of >1.6K studies in the FORRT Library of Replication Attempts (#FLoRA). Many of them belong to large-scale projects and are not even cited in the final report, so how to keep track of them?

Apologies - the original image is a screenshot of a recently published satirical article that lists "this section of the article is available upon request" for every section of the article.

A link to the published article is available upon reasonable request

The alt text for this image is available upon reasonable request.

Majestic, well done @rickcarlsson.bsky.social

I never though I would see the day that you stoop to a hidden moderators argument…

Share who say they're confident they can "report a suspected violation of a law, rule or regulation without experiencing retaliation" (2025 vs 2024) Share who say they're confident they can "report a suspected violation of a law, rule or regulation without experiencing retaliation" (2025 vs 2024) - analysis.r

Notes:
- This analyzes dichotomised data and the authors say the years shouldn't be compared directly.
- The government data is likert data into percent agree, which is naughty

Govt data analysis code gist.github.com/ianhussey/6d...

Poop/choc data+code
github.com/ianhussey/no...

Not to be an uber pedant/nerd, but i'm fascinated by the plausibility of SMD effect sizes and so collect really large ones.

The whole government change between year is about Cohen's d = 1.14, whereas we recently estimated the preference for chocolate over poop as Cohen's d = 5.57.

Does it count if the grant is between an American, a German, and an Irish guy?

Jamie, Malte, and Nick's project develops and validates CodeBot, a tool to evaluate the descriptive reproducibility of research by checking the alignment between analysis code (e.g. in R) and descriptions of analyses in the results sections of academic papers.

This is my first PI grant! This project quantifies convergent validity / jingle issues in clinical psychology, and uses this to quantify the likely impact of outcome switching on causal estimates from RCTs.