iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 15h

AI bots are flooding researchers with requests for money and time www.nature.com/articles/d41... "time" meaning agents are offering to collaborate with researchers. This seems peculiar because it is not clear who is behind an agent. Also, why agree to an invite when one can set up one's own agent?

142

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

moin syed @syeducation.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

Gave a talk in my dept. on the OSF transition. I wrote up a rough script of the session, which could be of interest to others. I synthesize existing resources and provide my own perspectives. Comments and corrections welcome! zenodo.org/records/2306...

the header for a paper describing "Life after OSF" #metascience

213663

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Paquito Bernard @paquitobernard.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Slow #epidemiology 'This means clearer questions, more rigorous designs, more transparent reporting, and more thorough sensitivity analyses. In other words, embracing the cutting edge of practice, not regurgitating the past.' #research #AI #health zenodo.org/records/2308...

zenodo.org

Why epidemiology should not be automated: the case for Slow Epidemiology

EXTRACT:Bann et al. pose the question, ‘why can’t epidemiology be automated (yet)?’, as though the automation of epidemiology is both inevitable and desirable [1]. They describe a future of ‘1-click r...

0114

Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Excel now supports multiple values in a single cell | Microsoft Community Hub techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/excelbl... Who wouldn't love an additional challenge in processing spreadsheets?

083

Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

NIH Launches $174M for Replicability and Reproducibility Initiatives www.insidehighered.com/news/governm... #MetaScience Includes funding lines that follow the many-labs idea (many being a handful here), install "rigor ambassadors" and an U.S.-based reproducibility network

051

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

J Dierkes @dierkes.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

We're hiring at School of Social Sciences at Univ of Mannheim Full Professorship (W-3) in Social Data Science and Social Science Methodology Apply by Oct 22 2026 www.sowi.uni-mannheim.de/en/about/job... @methodsnet.bsky.social

sowi.uni-mannheim.de

Job Vacancies

01731

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

John Stott @jpsastro.bsky.social · 24/09/2026

Had a UKRI funded grant proposal rejected at the "AI triage stage". "This AI-based triage was used only to identify approximately 50% of the strongest proposals to take forward to full human review." 🧪 #academicsky

I am writing to let you know that, unfortunately, your application was not successful.

Review process

As part of the initial triage of the 179 proposals submitted to this call, each was assessed using an AI-based review. Every proposal was read independently by several different AI models against the same seven criteria used to shape this call (including cyber security relevance, research quality and novelty, importance of the problem addressed, feasibility of the project plan, likely outputs and impact, value for money, and responsible research practice), with each model asked to give a score and a written justification with supporting quotations from the text. To guard against any one model's idiosyncrasies, we also ran a second, independent process in which different AI models debated the merits and weaknesses of each proposal before reaching a judgement, again against the same criteria. Scores from both processes were combined to produce an overall ranking.

This AI-based triage was used only to identify approximately 50% of the strongest proposals to take forward to full human review. Projects selected for funding were drawn from those that progressed to the full human review stage. We recognise that AI-assisted assessment is a new and evolving part of the review process, and we are continuing to evaluate how well it aligns with the judgements of human reviewers on this call. We will soon produce a document detailing our method, so that others can build upon it and improve it.

Feedback on your application

Your application was not selected to progress beyond the AI triage stage. To provide transparency on the outcome of this assessment, we are sharing below the scores (out of 5) from each of the two AI review processes described above, together with the mean score across the two processes.

40434238

Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 25/09/2026

Just realized that a crucial "not" is missing in the post. One should NOT let false references slide, regardless of the reason why they are in the manuscript.

110

Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

I find it really difficult to understand and accept that the html-version of a scientific article has this display of a table. It can't be too difficult to embed the table in the text with a download button placed somewhere, can it?

screenshot from a html page of a scientific article. Instead of showing a table in the html, there is a box with two buttons: one for display, which opens a pop-up window, and one for downloading the data in the table.

070

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Sanjay Srivastava @sanjaysrivastava.com · 22/09/2026

I’ve never heard of a university press office that doesn’t ask researchers to review and sign off on press releases. Unless I hear otherwise, this is on the scientists, not the PR office

1224

Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

Researchers submitting AI-assisted papers they ‘don’t understand’ www.timeshighereducation.com/news/researc... Are we heading toward a submission system with pre-review oral exams? Probably not, but something needs to be done about AI-written/heavily assisted papers. Examples are in the post.

000

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

SocArXiv @socarxiv.bsky.social · 21/09/2026

At SocArXiv, our intrepid volunteers screen a few dozen papers per day, using this moderation policy: socopen.org/moderation-p..., supplemented by this AI policy: socopen.org/ai-policy/. If that sounds fun or interesting or important to you, join us! Contact: socarxiv at gmail.

socopen.org

Moderation Policy

This moderation policy is now supplemented by our AI Policy, here. If your paper has been rejected and you would like to appeal the decision, use this form. Policy revision date October 2025, by th…

097

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Iva Vukušić @vukusiciva.bsky.social · 21/09/2026

This ridiculous number of applications is, in my view, the result of 2 nightmare developments happening concurrently 1.the precariousness of the job market for young PhD graduates which then fuels further: 2.the AI tools enabling overproduction of proposals. #Research #ERC #ResearchFunding #Academia

411248

Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 19/09/2026

Open research by principle, not by checklist | THE Campus www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/open-... #OpenScience by principle over the entire research process is a valuable idea. However, I do not see the contradiction to checklists. These are not exclusives but can complement each other.

000

Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 18/09/2026

The Harvard Dataverse is very slow today, somtimes even unavailable. Is this another platform that suffers from too many crawlers?

110

Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 18/09/2026

{AssumpSure} looks like a neat #rstats package / ShinyApp for standard analyses (t-test, OLS regression) with tests of assumptions github.com/Ahmedbarghee... I haven't tried them all but this could be useful for statistics teaching when one does not want to introduce students to statistics software

100

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Jan Vanhove @janhove.bsky.social · 18/09/2026

New blog post: "Cluster analysis: A skeptic’s guide". In which I ask a few questions that social scientists wishing to identify hidden classes in their data ought to address. janhove.github.io/posts/2026-0...

Table of contents:

Refresher: What is cluster analysis?
What are the clusters for?
What clusters, exactly?
Does the pipeline work?
What does the solution look like?
When running follow-up analyses, how is the uncertainty in the cluster assignments taken into account?
Was it worth it?
Conclusion
References

416146

Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 18/09/2026

AI tool turns any paper into an ‘agent’ that can collaborate and answer complex queries | Nature www.nature.com/articles/d41... I haven't tried it and probably won't. It reads like integrating a paper chat bot with tools for validating papers plus the opportunity to build on the agentified paper. 1/

220

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

easystats @easystats.github.io · 17/09/2026

Fitted the model? Great, that was just step one. 🛠️ Learn how to extract the actual answers to your research questions (predictions, contrasts, slopes) using the {modelbased} modelisation-approach. Read the new vignette here: easystats.github.io/modelbased/a... #RStats #easystats

0236

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Richard Meyer-Eppler @r-meyereppler.bsky.social · 17/09/2026

The problem is well-recognized. The upcoming Quarto 2.0 will introduce a collaborative editor on the web as an attempted solution. Not sure how viable this will be, but certainly an interesting development! opensource.posit.co/blog/2026-04...

opensource.posit.co

What's next: Quarto 2

We've started working on [`quarto-dev/q2`](https://github.com/quarto-dev/q2/), a full rewrite of Quarto in Rust.

061

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Research Professional News @resprofnews.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

Turn to AI in research grant assessment ‘is inevitable’. UKRI becomes first mover to explore automation for processing applications, as other British funders hesitate. www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-r...

566

Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

I guess I am not the only one seeing the message "This part of Cambridge.org is currently unavailable." and more when trying to access a website from Cambridge UP. I think this is going on for weeks now. What's the issue with @universitypress.cambridge.org ?

Screenshot of inaccessible website stating:
"This part of Cambridge.org is currently unavailable.

We have implemented additional assurance measures for our systems. As a result, we have suspended some systems and services.

We apologise for the disruption and are working to bring all services back online as quickly as possible.

If you have an urgent query and need to get in touch with us, please use the help centre and contact us link below.

https://help.cambridge.org/hc/en-gb"

100

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Jan Vanhove @janhove.bsky.social · 14/09/2026

I wrote a thing: "On the justification of sampling-based statistics in randomised experiments." It's geared towards non-statisticians in the quantitative social sciences, and I'd love to get some feedback! janhove.github.io/justificatio...

When popular statistical tools such as the $t$-test are taught, the narrative is one in which the data are sampled randomly from some population. Real studies employing random sampling are, however, much rarer than the ubiquity of these tools would suggest, and students may wonder what justifies their use in the absence of random sampling or even of a clear notion of what the population might be. Reassuringly, some of these tools can be understood in an altogether
more common setting: experiments in which units are randomly assigned to conditions. This perspective clarifies why familiar procedures such as the $t$-test tend to perform reasonably well in randomised experiments, but also underscores a difference in the scope of inference afforded by random sampling versus random assignment. Furthermore, this perspective foregrounds flexible randomisation-based methods, whose validity follows from the study design and which, as I will suggest, represent a natural starting point for teaching statistical inference to non-mathematicians.

21512

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Ruben C. Arslan @ruben.the100.ci · 11/09/2026

To be clear, I'm not against it. It's a bit annoying to have to read so many verbose AI reports, but I still think this is preferable to the regime of before, where most scientific work was never rechecked and many errors languish in code, polluting the record.

1272

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Ruben C. Arslan @ruben.the100.ci · 11/09/2026

An interesting thing is happening to me at the moment. I have a standing bug bounty policy for my first authored scientific work. That means, I've committed to pay people who report bugs in my code, up to 750€ for severe errors. Since GPT-6 Astra came out, I'm now getting several bug reports daily.

39334

Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 11/09/2026

100%. There is no reason to treat a supplement differently than code and data. Some journals insist on hosting the supplement on the article website. I would still include a DOI for the supplement in the paper to be on the safe side.

071

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Gunnar Hillert @hillert.bsky.social · 11/09/2026

Als ich mir in den 90ern Unis in #Berlin anschaute, war mir nie bewusst, dass die Humboldt-Universität bis 1933 das #Harvard der Welt war. Ich glaube, vielen Deutschen ist nicht bewusst, wie fundamental unser Uni-System 33-45 zerstört wurde – und dass es diese Spitzenstellung nie wiedererlangt hat.

46320

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Center for Open Science @cos.io · 10/09/2026

🎉 COS has established an independent subsidiary organization in Brussels! While the Belgian organization is legally independent from COS in the US, it will not operate separately—it's part of one integrated, global COS organization with a shared mission, strategy, & brand

cos.io

A New Chapter for COS in Europe

The Center for Open Science (COS) has officially established an independent subsidiary organization in Brussels, Belgium. This presence gives COS flexibility to engage with European institutions, organizations, funders, and communities.

02815

Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 10/09/2026

What counts as data in qualitative research? blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsoci... Good post around the question of "what is lost when qualitative data is treated mainly as text?" and how this relates to the use and limits of AI for some types of qualitative research. 1/

370

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Brian Nosek @briannosek.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

Noah is leading our effort to do a naturalistic randomized trial on a variant of the Registered Reports publishing model. Registered Revisions implements randomization at Revise-and-resubmit stage for new data or analyses. Here's a thread and preprint with the latest.

0115

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

arXiv stat.ME Methodology @statme-bot.bsky.social · 10/09/2026

Nate Breznau, Hung H. V. Nguyen: Metatheoretical multiverse analysis: Improving the reliability of research with theories-as-data arxiv.org/abs/2609.09190 arxiv.org/pdf/2609.09190 arxiv.org/html/2609.09190

001

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Andi Fugard @andifugard.info · 10/09/2026

The "prediction" that "AI could kill all humans" in the next decade was actually (10, 100]% probability btw – in an X post!¹ 😆 😭 If you're into this genre of doom, but with thought put into it, you could try the National Risk Register.² ¹ x.com/EvanHub/stat... ² www.gov.uk/government/p...

244

Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

Introducing REWIRE: Advancing Reproducibility Across the European Research Area www.openaire.eu/introducing-... #OpenScience A laudable project, let's hope it will have broad impact in Europe.

020

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Caspar van Lissa 🟥 @cjvanlissa.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

`webexercises` creates interactive exercises for pkgdown, Rmarkdown, and with this update, Quarto (books), Latex output, and #R package vignettes! My hope is that this will support open educational materials, especially in R-package documentation. cran.r-project.org/web/packages...

cran.r-project.org

webexercises: Create Interactive Web Exercises

Functions for easily creating interactive web exercises in 'R Markdown', 'Quarto', and package vignettes that students can use in self-guided learning.

1104

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Dalmeet Singh Chawla @dalmeet.bsky.social · 08/09/2026

This week, @nature.com features the World Bank's reproducibility project, under which the Bank is publishing 'reproducibility packages' alongside all their reports, papers and technical notes. www.nature.com/articles/d41...

nature.com

The World Bank is right to prioritize reproducibility

The development bank and others are starting to publish and verify the raw data and code accompanying their research-based reports and papers. Other agencies should do the same.

0189

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Amanda Kay Montoya @akmontoya.bsky.social · 08/09/2026

Curious about Zenodo as an OSF Project alternative? Here's a short video to get you started: File Uploads, Communities, and generating links for Anonymous Peer Review. youtu.be/jW84PxuJTMw

youtu.be

Getting Started with Zenodo (transitioning from OSF Projects)

YouTube video by AMANDA MONTOYA

67440

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Institute for Replication @i4replication.bsky.social · 08/09/2026

1/ What is the prevalence of personally identifiable information (PII) in author-collected data publicly shared in the social sciences? We audited 327 replication packages from 11 leading journals in economics, political science, and psychology Answer: surprisingly high 🧵

25537

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Armin Schaefer @arminschaefer.bsky.social · 08/09/2026

In diesem in der @pvs-journal.bsky.social veröffentlichten Aufsatz verorte ich Manows Buch "Spaltungslinien" in der Debatte zum Postliberalismus. Der zentralen Annahme, dass rechtspopulistische Parteien heute wirtschafts- und sozialpolitisch links stünden, widerspreche ich. rdcu.be/swtwc7WqF9ta

Titelblatt zum in der Politischen Vierteljahresschrift erschienenen Aufsatz "Ist rechts das neue links? Die postliberale Erklärung des Populismus". Der Aufsatz ist öffentlich zugänglich.

19836

Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 07/09/2026

Scientific datasets are riddled with copy-paste errors www.sciencedetective.org/scientific-d... 18 datasets out of 600 are reported as having serious issues. This is bad enough, but not as bad as the title may suggest. The approach is simple, but powerful and interesting. 1/

123

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Will Lowe @conjugateprior.org · 04/09/2026

One of the better arguments that Claude is human-level intelligence is that it doesn't understand tikz either.

0151

Ingo Rohlfing @ingorohlfing.bsky.social · 04/09/2026

$100k is a lot, even for what they offer. Who can afford this? (not that you should use it even if you could afford it) And what guarantees are there they produce legit research and do not simply spend a fraction on a fully AI-produced paper with fake data?

120

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Jay Patel @infotainment.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

Ask yourself: What would be the consequences for a student in your course doing this? Now ask yourself: What should be the consequences for a professor?

071

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · 02/09/2026

The Journal of Trial and Error is looking for a new Editor with an interest in meta-research, open science, or academic publishing. More info: www.linkedin.com/posts/were-l...

096

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

John V. Kane @uptonorwell.bsky.social · 31/08/2026

🧐 What do citizens think about "null results" in scientific research? To find out, @johnholbein1.bsky.social & I fielded a large-scale online experiment. We gave respondents straightforward info about a study, asked them some Qs, showed them the results, then asked them Qs again.

53617

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Cas Mudde @casmudde.bsky.social · 28/08/2026

Canada has the most ambitious program to poach academic talent from the U.S., with a budget of over 1 billion CAD, but the first intake only has 61 people listed — with just 7 in the broader social sciences.

canada.ca

Chairholders - Canada.ca

33711

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Melody Huang @melodyyhuang.bsky.social · 27/08/2026

My paper with Sam Pimentel on worst-case confounders is now out at Observational Studies in a special issue on Cornfield sensitivity analysis! (1/5) muse.jhu.edu/pub/56/artic...

1123

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 27/08/2026

Psychological Science special issue call 📣 Ever had your research denigrated bc it's "only descriptive", "what's the mechanism though?" and "but what are the theoretical implications?" Now has come your time to shine. Send your best descriptive work! www.psychologicalscience.org/publications...

Psychological Science invites submissions that advance psychological science through careful description of psychological phenomena. Psychological research often focuses on explaining and predicting phenomena before we have a sufficiently detailed understanding of them. It can be difficult to build strong theories on incomplete empirical foundations of the phenomena themselves. Careful descriptive research helps establish shared empirical reference points developed around well-characterized phenomena. As such, descriptive research contributes to psychological science both by improving our understanding of the phenomena themselves and by providing a stronger foundation for future theory-building, explanation, and prediction.

We are interested in manuscripts that:

Deepen our understanding of psychological phenomena, including what they look like, how they vary, and how they unfold;
Draw on a variety of sources of evidence and methods, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches; research conducted in naturalistic settings; intensive, longitudinal, or small-sample designs; and open or large-scale datasets;
Provide necessary context for interpreting what is being described, including who is represented in the data, the settings and circumstances in which phenomena occur, and the broader social contexts in which they are situated; and/or
Make a substantive contribution to psychological science through the quality, depth, or significance of the description provided.
The deadline for submitting regular manuscripts is April 15, 2027. Registered Reports will also be considered. The deadline for submitting Stage 1 Registered Reports is November 15, 2026. Authors should indicate in the “Comments to Editor” box during submission that the manuscript is intended for the “Descriptive Research in Psychological Science” special issue.

7244128