Sign in

Matti Vuorre

@matti.vuorre.com
2.1K followers 582 following 1.4K posts

I am an assistant professor at Tilburg University's Department of Social Psychology. I have a website at vuorre.com. All posts are posts.

PostsRepliesMedia
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 03/10/2026
12210
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 20/08/2026
jsPsych can now automatically document your data using the Psych-DS metadata standard: metadata.jspsych.org
2152
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 13/08/2026
New on the PsyArXiv blog: "Preprints: Where They Fit in Today’s Public Access Policy Landscape" blog.psyarxiv.com/2026/08/13/p...
Quote from linker article:

Benefits of preprint publishing for researchers

    Speed: Preprint publishing is fast, especially when compared with traditional journals.
    Citable outputs: Preprint platforms, such as PsyArXiv, assign persistent identifiers like DOIs, making preprints fully citable.
    Early credit: Preprints help researchers, especially those early in their career, demonstrate productivity and establish precedence.
    Improving access: Posting a preprint increases accessibility by making an open access version of the work available.
    Foundation for peer review: Preprints provide an opportunity for early feedback and can be peer-reviewed through platforms such as Review Commons and PREreview.
    Documentation and verification: Versioning, timestamps, and persistent identifiers provide a transparent record of the publication.
082
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 29/06/2026
I tried this on one of our papers from 2021. It did a fantastic job! For example (see screenshot) it verified our reported sample size & response rate, and about 80 other reported numbers/statistics with descriptions of where, why, and how some numbers differed.
151
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 25/06/2026
Ragnar Frisch, econometrician and founding member of the Econometric Society. Wikipedia.
101
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 27/05/2026
I can finally make 3d bar plots in ggplot!
180
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 26/05/2026
The quarto-preprint @quarto.org format now includes "boxes" (boring grayscale callouts likely more appropriate for academic papers vs. default quarto callouts): github.com/mvuorre/quar...
0182
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 13/04/2026
"Preprinting Does Not Meet Science’s Duty of Care Responsibility to Society" raises questions such as "why do they talk of science as a monolithic thing but only discuss a narrow corner of it?" and "what the hell?" journal.trialanderror.org/pub/preprint...
1224
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 03/04/2026
040
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 01/04/2026
To lead in open science efforts, we must engage in open science practices. These papers reporting on the reproducibility et al of science projects aren't even accessible. At least one of the commentaries was also closed access. This is a huge lost opportunity and sets a bad example to all.
1155
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 01/04/2026
123
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 01/04/2026
Meta-Psychology owns April 1st with the "Inaugural Editorial of Questionable Research Ideas and OtherPeculiarities: The QRAP section": open.lnu.se/index.php/me...
1104
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 27/03/2026
The Relation Between Attributions of Mental Capacities and Moral Standing Across Six Diverse Cultures: journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
041
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 26/03/2026
I made it to the fifth most impactful researcher! I kept hitting APCs but thought did well on publications!
020
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 26/03/2026
RIP Hans Roaming, the guy with the best presentation pointers.
010
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 26/03/2026
Get one of these
110
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 24/03/2026
Updates to #PsyArXiv moderation policies blog.psyarxiv.com/2026/03/23/u...
"From March 2026, moderators have added additional checks to ensure that authors have complied with all the terms of service for PsyArXiv. Moderators will also use authors’ past publication record to establish scholarly expertise for formats such as reviews, case studies, opinion pieces, etc. or topics where moderators have less experience, such as theories of consciousness, linguistics, philosophy, psychiatry, computational theory, etc. Such formats and topics require more specialist knowledge to establish whether they are in scope as scientific psychology, and what their scholarly contribution represents; hence, submissions cannot be evaluated by moderators in only a few minutes, and we rely on established scholarship to inform decisions. Submissions also need to be complete enough that they represent an independent contribution to the field of psychology, so slide decks and working papers presented as notes or research proposals or with incomplete methods will no longer be accepted into the archive, as they also require more than a few minutes to evaluate. We encourage authors to use OSF projects to record and version work-in-progress. However, PsyArXiv continues to accept stage 1 registered reports, where they pass standard checks for well-crafted registered reports. "
086
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 19/02/2026
It's also a very sensitive issue right now because in the USA superficially "open science" arguments are being made by parties advocating eating worms, injecting raw milk/bleach, etc. So this emotional/political baggage is making the "basic science" argumentation harder at the moment.
000
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 18/02/2026
osf.io/preprints/ps... Interesting case where authors use simulated data (because they couldn't get the original data) to reanalyse a study and conclude that its findings were spurious.
120
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 17/02/2026
Thanks, glad you found it useful! By the way it is now available in the extension marketplace (open-vsx.org/extension/mv...) and I plan to release a new version soon.
230
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 05/02/2026
djamkaret.bandcamp.com/album/a-sky-...
020
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 05/02/2026
What a great paper! Thanks for pointing it out.
010
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 03/02/2026
Shocking. The argument is so simple but surprising at the same time. I would never have thought about this in practice. Another reason why we should be very careful when operating under "previously established protocols".
0165
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 28/01/2026
Just that name alone...
000
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 28/01/2026
Screenshot of abstract: 

Measurement is important for the scientific programmes of addictive behaviours. In the present study, we investigated the measurement of gaming disorder, which recently became the first formal mental disorder owing to technology use (International Classification of Diseases 11). In particular, we tested the gambling hypothesis: whether survey studies on gaming disorder are contaminated by a linguistic conflation of gambling and gaming behaviours. The 500 most cited studies were analysed. Both confirmatory and exploratory analyses supported the gambling hypothesis. Of all 13 studies for which authors shared their survey materials, only one had excluded gambling (95% credible interval (CrI) [1.8%, 33.9%]; Bayes factor (BF) compared to 50% prevalence = 45). Based on an exploratory review of 358 full texts, approximately 30% of the studies had excluded gambling (95% CrI [23.54%, 32.80%]; BF compared to 50% prevalence = 2.8 × 10¹4). We further surveyed English (EN; n = 312) and Slovak (SK; n = 319) speakers about their views on gaming and gambling, which revealed terminological confusions in both languages. For instance, about half of the participants (EN = 48.7%/SK = 59.1%) interpreted ‘gambling’ to be ‘gaming’ as well. The majority of gaming disorder survey research appears to be contaminated by a systematic measurement error stemming from conceptual confusion. This problem is linguistic and does not concern all languages similarly. To minimize the impact of the error, we recommend researchers clarify survey instructions and seek alternatives to survey data.
080
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 22/01/2026
050
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 21/01/2026
*fear; also see attached :)
120
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 05/12/2025
170
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 05/12/2025
I also have these data (admittedly the first one is from 2010 not 2011) 😉
140
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 03/12/2025
This is the right move.
031
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 27/11/2025
Thanks, interesting paper. I'm missing a conclusion in the example write-up. Is it that the hypotheses (JND & prior SD) are so uncertain that there cannot be a conclusion? I find this generally the stickiest point against interval tests.
100
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 12/11/2025
~40% of psyarxiv preprints contain links to open data in 2025 vs (e.g.) ~10% in 2019 (although in the latter case people mostly did not report this metadata): vuorre.com/psyarxiv-das...
0166
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 12/11/2025
vuorre.com/psyarxiv-das... now shows tag co-occurrence networks for psyarxiv preprints. Useful for e.g. looking at what kinds of things people study in relation to social media (left) and technology (right).
010
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 12/11/2025
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwMV... cf. www.scottaaronson.com/writings/jou...
110
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 10/11/2025
covid-19 is the most commonly used tag on psyarxiv: vuorre.com/psyarxiv-das... I'm surprised to see 'consciousness' in the top-20!
Graph of most common tags on psyarxiv
	Tag	▾Uses
	covid-19	1,529
	mental health	1,118
	depression	1,099
	anxiety	839
	emotion	820
	meta-analysis	722
	personality	699
	individual differences	680
	attention	659
	memory	619
	artificial intelligence	589
040
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 06/11/2025
Held, R., & Hein, A. (1963). Movement-produced stimulation in the development of visually guided behavior. Journal of comparative and physiological psychology. scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=e... I think about this paper more often than is necessary.
020
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 06/11/2025
Abstract

Science relies on integrity and trustworthiness. But scientists under career pressure are lured to purchase fake publications from ‘paper mills’ that use AI-generated data, text and image fabrication. The number of low-quality or fraudulent publications is rising to hundreds of thousands per year, which—if unchecked—will damage the scientific and economic progress of our societies. The result is editor and reviewer fatigue, irreproducible experiments, misguided experiments, disinformation and escalating costs that devour funding from taxpayers intended for research. It is high time to reevaluate current publishing models and outline a global plan to stop this unhealthy development. A conference was therefore organized by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to draft an action plan with specific recommendations, as follows. (i) Academia should resume control of publishing using non-profit publishing models (e.g. diamond open-access). (ii) Adjust incentive systems to merit quality, not quantity, in a reputation economy where the gaming of publication numbers and citation metrics distorts the perception of academic excellence. (iii) Implement mechanisms to prevent and detect fake publications and fraud which are independent of publishers. (iv) Draft and implement legislations, regulations and policies to increase publishing quality and integrity. This is a call to action for universities, academies, science organizations and funders to unite and join this effort.
1155
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 05/11/2025
Wrote a little interactive webapp for creating psyarxiv coauthorship networks, try it out: vuorre.com/psyarxiv-das... Feedback welcome: github.com/mvuorre/psya...
psyarxiv coauthorship network from https://vuorre.com/psyarxiv-dashboard/coauthorship showing Matti Vuorre's coauthors
1114
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 03/11/2025
PsyArXiv also recently switched to a pre-moderation workflow due to AI slop (the attached graph shows the 2025 increase caused by a large review backlog due to the moderation switch): blog.psyarxiv.com/2025/08/20/c...
141
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 28/10/2025
Its so fast & responsive. I love that I can see power with and without dropout at the same time.
200
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 28/10/2025
🎉 @rpsychologist.com 's PowerLMM.js is the online statistics application of the year 2025 🎉 powerlmmjs.rpsychologist.com - Calculate power (etc) for multilevel models - Examine effects of dropout and other important parameters - Fast! (Instant results)
Screenshot of https://powerlmmjs.rpsychologist.com/
28232
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 27/10/2025
"Traumatized Mr. Incredible" meme with "Data and code available", "After looking at data & code"
0186
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 23/10/2025
I am hiring PhD candidates to study the psychology of attention & technology use at @tilburg-university.bsky.social. We're looking for motivated & curious scholars with expertise in cognitive psychology and statistics, and offer a friendly work environment with great terms & benefits. tiu.nu/22989
An aerial photograph of the Tilburg University campus.
14952
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 15/10/2025
1. Create a problem. 2. Come up with a resource-intensive & error prone solution. 3. Profit.
110
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 14/10/2025
Scientific communication is part and parcel of the academic and scientific work that we do, independent of industry pressures or intervention. Why do we accept industry capture of this most essential part of our enterprise?
Neither does the role of an editor have to be tied to a commercial rent-seeker: The Publish, Review, Curate model of scholarly communication enables a given scholarly work to be included in a plurality of collections, perhaps analogous to journal volumes or blog categories, each curated by different editors on different platforms. Many editorial teams are already recognizing that things could indeed be better, and are resigning en masse to start free scholar-run journals.

These alternatives to ‘Big Academic Publishing‘ are already making it faster and cheaper to get one’s work permanently available and findable online, vetted by editors, and reviewed by peers.

Considering the estimated $8.97 billion dollars of (mostly) taxpayer money hoovered up in four years by only six commercial publishers on Open Access (OA) article processing fees, Elsevier’s $3,480 median hybrid OA processing fee, and an average turnaround time of 111 days, alternatives fare well: Peer Community In, an online platform for reviews and ‘recommendations’ (brief editorial reports), reports total costs of €369 per article. We’ve known these flawed economics for decades, yet the scientific literature remains in captivity. Maybe we just lack the sufficient anger for change.

Perhaps the time to replace academic journals is now. For me, it should have been 385 days ago.
180
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 14/10/2025
I argue that the time is right for widespread adoption of open review platforms like PREreview (prereview.org) and Review Commons (www.reviewcommons.org) and reject the arbitrary administrative overhead imposed on us by the publication industry.
Never mind that my colleagues are reading and citing the document on PsyArXiv. For this manuscript to count as a legitimate scientific product I must first endure inexplicable delays; arbitrary formatting requirements (the formatting manual costs $47.99); conflicts between my scholarly values and the astronomical profits that private publishing companies make from our taxpayer funded work; introduction of errors into my manuscript by the journal’s proofreaders; websites from hell; and of course peer review. Without that process of publication, my work will remain a ‘preprint’—an incomplete and unreliable artifact unworthy of a place in the scientific literature.

Could things be better? I surmise that, like fish unaware of their wet surrounds, academics don’t feel the pain because it’s all they’ve ever known.

For one, peer review has nothing to do with commercial journals or publishers—it’s the voluntary labor of our colleagues in service of scientific progress. We could, right now, be reviewing each others work on PREreview or Review Commons. Alas, instead of these scholarly debates we are complacent with pretending that a 40% profit margin industry is somehow facilitating the peer-review process better than the transparent platforms already available to us, for free.
192
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 14/10/2025
This short essay was inspired by Stevan Harnad's early works on scientific publishing, particularly "Scholarly skywriting and the prepublication continuum of scientific inquiry" (eprints.soton.ac.uk/251894/1/har...)
Preprints—scholarly manuscripts not yet captured by the publication industry—are widely read and circulated, yet the ‘intellectual perestroika‘ they could facilitate hasn’t been uniformly realized because scholars continue to think of preprints as less authoritative than their industry-captured (‘published’) counterparts. It is time to free the scholarly literature from hostile captivity and embrace preprints as the primary objects of scholarly communication.

385 days ago, I submitted a manuscript for evaluation at an academic journal. Around the same time, I submitted the same manuscript to PsyArXiv, a document sharing website popular in the psychological sciences. The results: Radio silence for the journal submission; 334 downloads and 4 citations for the PsyArXiv version.

But this is a meaningless comparison: The PsyArXiv version hasn’t been peer-reviewed and listed on a journal’s website: It is not published, and everyone knows that publications are more valid than preprints, and that it is publications, not preprints, that provide the pitons on a scientist’s climb to success and fame.
130
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 14/10/2025
Against Publishing: universonline.nl/nieuws/2025/... Preprints are read, shared, and cited, yet still dismissed as incomplete until blessed by a publisher. I argue that the true measure of scholarship lies in open exchange, not in the industry’s gatekeeping of what counts as published.
612046
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 13/10/2025
The quarto-preprint @quarto.org extension (github.com/mvuorre/quar...) for PDF outputs with #typst now includes proper appendices for reproducible #quartopub #rstats manuscripts, improved two-column layouts (and themes, incl. full-width content), better reference formatting & improved documentation.
1367
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 08/10/2025
Based on the available information it appears that the points on p.3 apply to any preprint, not just pci:rr. I don't know if Wiley has responded to this yet.
1. Authors post their manuscript on a preprint server and then immediately submit to a Wiley journal. After each round of peer review they update the version of the preprint simultaneously with submitting their revised manuscript to the journal – a common practice in many fields. The latest version of the preprint is therefore identical to the
version that is under consideration by the journal. Where the article is eventually accepted by the journal, the final version of the preprint is materially identical to the accepted version of the manuscript.

2. An editor of a Wiley journal writes an editorial (or other un-reviewed piece such as a Comment) and posts it on a preprint server prior to submitting it to the journal. The article is immediately accepted without any changes, therefore the article published by the Wiley journal is identical to the preprinted version of the article.

3. Authors post their manuscript on a preprint server and submit to a Wiley journal where it undergoes in-depth peer review. The reviews are very positive, requiring only a single minor correction to fix a typographic error. The original preprint is therefore materially identical to the accepted and published version.
020