iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by ERROR

Samantha Joel @datingdecisions.bsky.social · 19/03/2026

Given how machine learning practices have evolved in the last decade, I was very curious if these findings would hold up. Many thanks to Florian for his nuanced and thorough review. Romantic desire: not predictable in 2017, not predictable in 2026.

3225

ERROR @error.reviews · 19/03/2026

New report: Joel, Eastwick, & Finkel (2017) “Is Romantic Desire Predictable? Machine Learning Applied to Initial Romantic Attraction”. Based on the review by @florianpargent.bsky.social, we find Minor Errors that do not affect the core conclusions of the manuscript. osf.io/hxnum

osf.io

OSF

1188

ERROR @error.reviews · 23/01/2026

News from scientific self-correction: Authors pushing to get errors in their papers corrected. Lukas continues to be a role model for how scientists should handle post-publication peer review.

195

ERROR @error.reviews · 22/01/2026

Improving scientific practice can seem daunting. In this fantastic talk (and thread below), Julia Rohrer shares practical ways to communicate methodological insights to a wider audience of researchers.

12310

ERROR @error.reviews · 18/12/2025

At ERROR, we cannot compete with million-dollar bounties for whistleblowers. But it is great to see sleuthing work rewarded, and institutions admitting when their researchers engaged in misconduct.

0137

ERROR @error.reviews · 17/12/2025

Post-publication peer review is at it best when it's thoughtful, scrupulous, steeped in detail – and challenges key claims of the paper. @janhove.bsky.social's discussion of a recent paper on multilingualism exemplifies this.

0189

ERROR @error.reviews · 08/12/2025

Metascientists step up as role models for a healthy error culture in science. Here is a great case where an author and a critical reader collaborated to set the record straight.

0133

ERROR @error.reviews · 02/12/2025

Voluntary retraction remains a key way to put scientific self-correction into practice. Zhu and Holmes (2024) did the right thing when they realized that some of their results were based on a coding error. Original: psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/202... With retraction: psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/202...

psycnet.apa.org

APA PsycNet

0167

ERROR @error.reviews · 02/12/2025

Many error remain to be found in clinical trials. Patients deserve reliable results. Kudos to these authors for their persistent work to correct the record.

0135

ERROR @error.reviews · 24/11/2025

Congratulations to @simine.com for winning the Einstein Foundation Individual Award! 🎉 A well-deserved recognition for her seminal efforts to improve scientific rigor, which includes instituting detailed checks for errors and computational reproducibility at Psychological Science.

0216

Reposted by ERROR

Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 14/11/2025

I think this is an overly pessimistic take from the @bmj.com. Sharing data does not inherently increase trust, rather it enables verification which allows for trust calibration. This example is a win. Serious issues were rapidly detected that would not have been without mandatory data sharing.

35214

ERROR @error.reviews · 14/11/2025

Synchronous Robustness Reports could explore implications of different analytical choices – but they could still suffer from bias. Hardwicke argues that preregistration is crucial to prevent it. @tomhardwicke.bsky.social

089

ERROR @error.reviews · 14/11/2025

Are methodological and causal inference errors creating a false impression that the gut microbiome causes autism? In this strong analysis, Mitchell, Dahly, and Bishop question the evidence. They show that triangulation in science requires multiple robust lines of research.

01812

ERROR @error.reviews · 30/07/2025

New Nature podcast episode about ERROR and the Perspectives on Scientific Error workshop!

162

Reposted by ERROR

Andrew Gelman et al. @statmodeling.bsky.social · 13/07/2025

“We pay experts to examine important and influential scientific publications for errors ... We expect most published research to contain some errors ... our reward system pays bonuses to both authors and reviewers even when minor errors are found ..." statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/07/13/e...

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

The ERROR project: “We pay experts to examine important and influential scientific publications for errors . . . We expect most published research to contain at least some errors . . . our reward sy...

1259

Reposted by ERROR

Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 15/02/2025

EU legislation requiring clothes be reused and recycled may be based on a numerical error in a 2017 NGO report where $460 billion was added instead of subtracted. www.frontiersin.org/journals/sus...

frontiersin.org

Frontiers | The Emperor’s old clothes: a critical review of circular fashion in gray literature

094

Reposted by ERROR

Ruben C. Arslan @ruben.the100.ci · 20/01/2025

My first time acting as a recommender for the ERROR project. Huge props to the authors @erichehman.bsky.social et al. for exposing themselves to this detailed post-pub peer review and to Will Lowe @conjugateprior.org for his detailed review and reproduction.

13010

Reposted by ERROR

Anne Scheel @annemscheel.bsky.social · 20/01/2025

Really amazingly heartening to see that academic discourse can also be like this

0387

Reposted by ERROR

Jamie Cummins @jamiecummins.bsky.social · 20/01/2025

One of our main goals with @error.reviews is to shift scientific culture to identify, acknowledge, and correct errors in the literature. Eric’s response to the recent report on his work is a perfect example of embodying these values. Kudos to the authorship team and reviewer Will Lowe.

0287

Reposted by ERROR

JK Flake @jkflake.bsky.social · 20/01/2025

It is an honor for anyone to care enough about your work to check it, so thanks dudes. A mistake I suggest others not make is failing to ensure that all the data, from download, to merge, to analysis is available and each step, not just the final analysis, is reproducible.

15816

Reposted by ERROR

Richard McElreath 🐈‍⬛ @rmcelreath.bsky.social · 21/01/2025

This sounds like the same error I blogged about a few years ago, the common error of trying to control for population (or body size or many etc) by dividing the outcome variable by it. Props to the authors for seeking review and taking the issue seriously. Role models for us all.

elevanth.org

There Are No Magic Outcome Variables

I'm very sorry but I am going to write about statistics and causal inference again. I'd much rather be doing science. I'll make it brief. I was reading a preprint about the relationship between kinsh...

510120

Reposted by ERROR

Lisa DeBruine @debruine.bsky.social · 21/01/2025

A ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ model response to finding problems in your published research. If you’ve published more than a few papers, you too have almost certainly made at least one mistake, so we should normalise addressing them like this! Great to see @error.reviews approaching error detection so sensitively

0539

Reposted by ERROR

Sebastian Kuhn @sebastiankuhn.bsky.social · 20/01/2025

THIS is how science works. A great and honorable reaction - especially in these times of resistance to facts and smug self-righteousness. Thanks to @erichehman.bsky.social & @error.reviews!

0144

Reposted by ERROR

Eric Hehman @erichehman.bsky.social · 20/01/2025

We've had a paper reviewed by ERROR, which has concluded we had a "major error that affects a core conclusion" Few comments on the conclusion and the process in general 1/n

420954

ERROR @error.reviews · 20/01/2025

New report! Hehman et al. (2018) "Disproportionate Use of Lethal Force in Policing Is Associated With Regional Racial Biases". Based on the review by @conjugateprior.org, we find a Major Error that affects a core conclusion. We recommend the authors seek a correction. error.reviews/reviews/hehm...

error.reviews

Hehman et al. (2018)

ERROR is a bug bounty program for science to systematically detect and report errors in academic publications

14624

Reposted by ERROR

Jamie Cummins @jamiecummins.bsky.social · 10/01/2025

ERROR is our scientific bug-bounty program. We pay reviewers and authors of impactful published articles to do a deep dive on results, data, code, etc to check for errors. Our second report of 2025 (and my first acting as Recommender for the review) is out now!

0136

ERROR @error.reviews · 10/01/2025

Excited to announce our second report of 2025! Fernbach et al. (2019) "Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most". Based on the review by R Chris Fraley, we find Minor Errors which do not affect core conclusions. error.reviews/reviews/fern...

error.reviews

Fernbach et al. (2019)

ERROR is a bug bounty program for science to systematically detect and report errors in academic publications

186

Reposted by ERROR

Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 08/01/2025

ERROR is our scientific bug-bounty program. We pay reviewers (and authors!) of impactful published articles to do a deep dive on results, data, code, etc to check for errors. Our second report is out now! More information about the program here: error.reviews

error.reviews

Home

ERROR is a bug bounty program for science to systematically detect and report errors in academic publications

13419

Reposted by ERROR

Andrew Przybylski @shuhbillskee.bsky.social · 08/01/2025

Great to see this initiative providing these insights! Fingers crossed programmes like these don't depend on a few brave souls putting their work forward for scrutiny. I'd like to see this integrated into how funders evaluate the lifecycle of all research they support in the public interest.

094

ERROR @error.reviews · 08/01/2025

We are excited to announce the review of Lades et al. (2020) "Daily emotional well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic". Based on the review by Joop Adema, we find Moderate Errors which do not affect the core conclusions. We recommend the authors seek a correction error.reviews/reviews/lade...

error.reviews

Lades et al. (2020)

ERROR is a bug bounty program for science to systematically detect and report errors in academic publications

12216

Reposted by ERROR

PubPeer @pubpeer.com · 26/11/2024

We’re encouraging meaningful commentary with $1,000 rewards for selected PubPeer comments. bsky.app/profile/pubp... Now imagine if @hhmi.bsky.social , NIH, NSF, etc also awarded outstanding public reviews. These could boost careers and CVs while building a vital layer of scientific evaluation.

24324

ERROR @error.reviews · 08/07/2024

New paper under review! Danièle Gubler is checking "Environmental sensitivity in children: Development of the Highly Sensitive Child Scale and identification of sensitivity groups" by Pluess et al. for errors. error.reviews/reviews/plue...

error.reviews

Pluess et al. (2017)

ERROR is a bug bounty program for science to systematically detect and report errors in academic publications

011

ERROR @error.reviews · 08/07/2024

New paper under review! @matthewbjane.bsky.social is checking "A meta-analysis of work-family conflict and social support" by French, Dumani, Allen, & Shockley for errors. error.reviews/reviews/fren...

error.reviews

French et al. (2018)

ERROR is a bug bounty program for science to systematically detect and report errors in academic publications

083

ERROR @error.reviews · 29/06/2024

New paper under review! @drewhalbailey.bsky.social is checking "Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?" by Cheryan, Ziegler, @akmontoya.bsky.social, & Jiang for errors. error.reviews/reviews/cher...

error.reviews

Cheryan et al. (2017)

ERROR is a bug bounty program for science to systematically detect and report errors in academic publications

021

Reposted by ERROR

Brian Nosek @briannosek.bsky.social · 21/06/2024

“My hope for this is that it goes from something that was unimaginable until it happened, and then it was unthinkable not to do it,” says @ianhussey.bsky.social “You have to give people the permission, and incentive, to think in the first place that errors might exist.” www.wired.com/story/bounty...

wired.com

Science Is Full of Errors. Bounty Hunters Are Here to Find Them

A new project is paying researchers to find errors in other scientists’ work. The only problem? Even error hunters make mistakes.

01714

ERROR @error.reviews · 21/06/2024

Out today in WIRED: "Science Is Full of Errors. Bounty Hunters Are Here to Find Them"

0159

ERROR @error.reviews · 17/06/2024

New paper under review! @frederikaust.com is checking "Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: I. Long-term change and stability from 2007 to 2016" by Charlesworth & Banaji for errors. error.reviews/reviews/char...

error.reviews

Charlesworth & Banaji (2019)

ERROR is a bug bounty program for science to systematically detect and report errors in academic publications

0134

ERROR @error.reviews · 12/06/2024

New paper under review! Florian Pargent is checking "Is romantic desire predictable? Machine learning applied to initial romantic attraction" by @datingdecisions.bsky.social, @pauleastwick.bsky.social, & @elijfinkel.bsky.social for errors. error.reviews/reviews/joel...

error.reviews

Joel et al. (2017)

ERROR is a bug bounty program for science to systematically detect and report errors in academic publications

063

ERROR @error.reviews · 31/05/2024

New paper under review! Alex Burgoyne is checking "Should we stop thinking about inhibition? Searching for individual and age differences in inhibition ability" by Rey-Mermet, Gade, & Oberauer for errors. error.reviews/reviews/rey_...

error.reviews

Rey-Mermet et al. (2018)

ERROR is a bug bounty program for science to systematically detect and report errors in academic publications

032

ERROR @error.reviews · 21/05/2024

Science can be self-correcting — but only if we invest in making it so. Our view on the staggering costs of undetected errors in science, and why funding error detection and correction is less expensive, published today in Nature www.nature.com/articles/d41...

nature.com

Pay researchers to spot errors in published papers

Borrowing the idea of ‘bug bounties’ from the technology industry could provide a systematic way to detect and correct the errors that litter the scientific literature. Borrowing the idea of ‘bug boun...

34130

Reposted by ERROR

Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 17/05/2024

Our paid post publication error detection project @error.reviews reviews has issued its first report! @russpoldrack.bsky.social detected minor errors in @janw.bsky.social's (2018) study on the impact of procedural variations of the go/no-go paradigm. Full report: error.reviews/reviews/wess...

error.reviews

Wessel (2018)

ERROR is a bug bounty program for science to systematically detect and report errors in academic publications

2106

Reposted by ERROR

Michèle Nuijten @michelenuijten.bsky.social · 17/05/2024

How science should work! Such a cool project 🧮🔍

073