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...
It worked!
My ideal is a science system in which it is much easier to get the supervisory top scientist role, but also much easier to lose that again. Let's accellerate that this generation makes room for a new one. A yearly evaluation of whether you are up for a rolemodel job is normal in any other profession
Thank you for this. I felt a bit alone in my anger.
I really hope that this does change how we see the 'superstar sience model' and empowers the research reform in Europe: towards a science system that rewards team science, epistemic humility, and implementations for organized scepticism.
I am sceptical about preregistration for clinical trials as well. Even if protocols are published, pregistration review is not as good as what is implemented now at for example PCI-RR, and prereg does not always avoid that result papers exploit ambiguity in analysis, switch outcomes and add spin.
Or start at the ISCB. There is a joint workshop:
Designing Next-Generation Respiratory Virus Trials: Estimands, Core Outcomes, and Adaptive Pandemic-Ready Frameworks
PROACT EU-Response + RECOVERY
and we are also inviting REMAP-CAP
Maybe it will increase the chances that the results will be reviewed with respect to the preregistration.
But I guess health journals have little interest in preventing p-hacking or even outcome switching. Otherwise they would have adopted Registered Reports already
Is REMAP-CAP large and simple?
I thought it was mostly the NHS system of electronic health records that made the $500 per patient possible.
Have costs gone up for RECOVERY outside the UK?
This is an important story. I did not know yet about the early 2000's activism and how it was both effective and ineffecive. Very interesting read!
open.substack.com/pub/clinical...
Had a small part of this that I am pretty proud of:
Full push-button reproducible manuscripts from data to manuscript.
Nearly every stat, figure, number, table, etc is pulled directly from analysis code and data and "knit" with manuscript text written in Google Docs.
Blog post coming soon ...
We need to keep trying to find new ways to organize the 'organized sceptisism'.
This is a great attempt.
What happens if you propose coordination ❤️❤️
Ionica columns
Geweldig!
"Is Rob Jetten nou zo jong of zijn wij nu zo oud?
Waar ieder van ons langzaam maar zeker monotoon stijgend ouder wordt, is de leeftijd van ‘de premier’ een veel grilligere grafiek."
Had ook 'lineair' kunnen zijn. Ze heeft 'monotoon' voorbij de eindredactie gekregen. 😍
In February 2021, a town in Brazil showed up for a groundbreaking randomized Covid vax trial, providing evidence of population effects of mass vaccination in a pandemic.
My latest @plos.org post digs into this exciting precedent & why it matters:
absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2026/03/28/a...
I realize so many missed opportunities for the 'destroy the world'-lobby.
I mean Polestar, Zoe, VW ID, are not cars right? Can confuse consumers if there are no CO2 emissions, noise and smog.
@dans-knaw-nwo.bsky.social @amsterdamumc.bsky.social
I was happy to be interviewed for this as a proud user of innovative publishing platforms
researchequals.com, osf.io and rr.peercommunityin.org
We need NWO, ZonMw, universities and UMCs to provide sustained funding so we can get to the next phase of innovation.
-Please help tag any orgs on Bky
How to support innovation in scholarly communication?
-> report commissioned by SURF Netherlands (a.o.)
Funders and institutions need to take steps:
"dedicated funding streams for platform infrastructure"
"institutions should invest in enabling infrastructure"
doi.org/10.5281/zeno... 1/
SPIN GRAND CHELEM 🏆
Psilocybin JAMA Psychiatry trial 🍄
a) Positive framing despite negative primary outcome,
b) Inconclusive results presented as supportive evidence,
c) Safety concerns downplayed with reassuring wording.
See the rest of the 🧵 for the verbatim...
I wish 2026 is the year we stop the drain that scientific publishers impose on science.
Instead of funding science, increasing shares of shrinking research budgets are funneled to publishers in exchange of.. not much.
Understand the strain: tinyurl.com/2b6wxx5r
Stop the drain: tinyurl.com/3jfscscy
@daaronr.bsky.social
Imagine if chefs were paid based on the number of meals they cooked, not the number of meals people purchased or ate. -David Reinstein, The Unjournal
Yes, that is about the stupid way we are currently doing science.
Big news from #arXiv:
jobs.chronicle.com/job/37961678...
1. It's becoming an independent #nonprofit organization.
2. It's leaving #CornellU and moving to NYC.
3. It's hiring a CEO, with a salary in the range of $300k.
#OpenAccess #Preprints #ScholComm
In my ideal world, every promotion (eg full professor) or large personal grant committee would have two paid sleuths that go through/sample candidates' CVs for sloppyness and QRPs.
What do sleuths think of that?
We would need a database of people and a concept of what a basic CV check looks like.
"Science: the only discipline where something can fail 3/5 times and still be considered a success."
open.substack.com/pub/gidmk/p/...
A graphic promoting a book review. On the left is the cover of the book Inside an Academic Scandal: A Story of Fraud and Betrayal by Max H. Bazerman. The cover has large orange and black text and an abstract horizontal paint‑stroke graphic beneath the word “Scandal.” On the right, black text reads: “Jennifer Byrne reviews Inside an Academic Scandal: A Story of Fraud and Betrayal.” At the bottom right is small text that reads “Vol. 46 No. 1 (2026): February,” alongside a small circular logo with the letters “PIR.”
Jennifer Byrne (@jabyrnesci.bsky.social) reviews Max H. Bazerman’s 'Inside an Academic Scandal', a narrative of research misconduct, institutional response, and the ethical challenges surrounding fraud in academia.
journals.uvic.ca/index.php/pi...
Does anyone know if he actually managed to do anything about the over-reliance of surrogate endpoints in cancer trials? That was kind of his whole thing on his legitimate research side of things before *waves hands*
Possibly we lost this appreciation for the factual narrative of preliminary attempts, exploratory setups, dead ends, new beginnings, problems and errors, when 'research article' became the unit of scientific exchange. There was literally no space for details that didn't serve the key storyline.
If everything is a registered report, problem solved. Priors need review.
Simulating many scenarios is good practice, whether you're analysis is frequentist or Bayesian. Still really hard to adjust a-priori in exactly the way optimal for actual data.
