iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

Dan Garisto @dangaristo.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

In addition to spending less money and making fewer new grants, SBE also dramatically narrowed where it made those new grants. Areas such as economics, sociology, and archaeology received few to no grants.

Grantmaking gutted
The National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) awarded far fewer new awards than typical in fiscal year 2026—just 91. (The fiscal year runs from 1 October to 30 September.) Most of the new grants focused on cognitive science and artificial intelligence, in alignment with White House priorities; offices that support fields such as economics, sociology, and research ethics, as well as postdoctoral fellowships, awarded no grants at all.

316455

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

Murdoink @murdoink.com · 15/07/2025

dude get out of there

07330

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 10/05/2025

pink news is transphobic garbage

100

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

Gillian Branstetter @gbbranstetter.bsky.social · 06/05/2025

1986 ass headline

8629129

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 15/12/2024

Wren made some incredible mac and cheese yesterday I'm so grateful for them 🥰

020

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 12/12/2024

J'apprends encore à parler français. C'est très amusant.

000

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 10/12/2024

Problem is, this doesn't help existing homeowners, many of whom will be underwater on their homes if the prices go down because they've leveraged into the housing market through their mortgages. It's a bitch of a self-perpetuating system.

100

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 08/12/2024

This should be obvious if you think about it - reflecting the light would mean the panel isn't absorbing it.

120

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

Silmerion @throwsare.cheap · 06/12/2024

Ladies, if your man doesn't fill out the Mizuumi page for his main, get a better man.

0175

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

Haus of Decline @hausofdecline.bsky.social · 04/12/2024

Everyone's doing their year end music stuff. Reminder that my album came out this year and it is fucking brilliant. If you like bitches that play guitar like the devil, then you'll like this.

201037129

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 04/12/2024

Shoutout to one of my besties @toastly.zone go commission her if you ever need graphic design work done, she's the best

011

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

Berna Devezer @devezer.bsky.social · 04/12/2024

1. For everyone reacting to the op without looking the paper up, it's from '82. 2. Amazing gems in the commentaries raising points about ethics and methodology. Favorite quote from David Lazarus: "Good science is not and never has been "objective," except to those who have never practiced it!"

The fate of published articles, submitted again
John J. Bartko
Division of Biometry and Epidemiology, National Institute of Mental Health,
Bethesda, Md. 20205

Is part of the exercise here to recognize that much of the
material in this accepted-for-publication article has appeared
earlier in "A Manuscript Masquerade. How Well Does the
Review Process Work?," The Sciences, 20, September 1980,
pp. 16-19, by Douglas P. Peters and Stephen J. Ceci?
A prior account of P h C's work also appeared in New
Scientist in March 1980 (see Cherfas 1980). Ed.

Deception in the study of the peer-review
process
Joseph L. Fleiss
Division of Biostatistics, Columbia University School of Public Health, New
York, N.Y. 10032
I shall leave it to the other commentators to address the
important and disquieting findings reported in the article by
Peters & Ceci (P & C) and shall instead address what I see as
serious ethical problems in their study. In my opinion, the
authors violated at least six of the American Psychological
Association's (1973) 10 ethical principles for research with
human subjects. As a result, the study should not have been
undertaken as designed. Given that it was, its results should
not have been published.

Rejection, rebuttal, revision: Some flexible
features of peer review
Donald B. Rubin
Mathematics Research Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wise.
53706
Peters & Ceci (P & C) are to be commended for providing an
interesting and provocative article on the practice of professional publication. As the authors are fully aware, however,
their sample of 12 articles is so small as to provide more a
source for anecdotes than a basis for a substantial scientific
study. Moreover, the anecdotes would have been even more
stimulating if P & C had been able to supply some history for
the 12 articles: Had they been previously rejected by other
journals before being accepted where published, how many
revisions were required before final acceptance, and what were
the reasons for initial rejection? All who routinely submit
articles for publication realize the Monte Carlo nature of
reviews, and thus take advantage of existing opportunities to
rebut and respond to criticism as well as pursue alternative
outlets for publication.

I find this article particularly interesting because I am
currently coordinating and applications editor for the Journal
of the American Statistical Association (JASA). As a journal
editor, I have two primary reactions: first, surprise at the
combined ignorance of reviewers as to the recent content of
their own journals, and second, concern with the general thesis
of the article, which, I believe, tends to be misleading

Interreferee agreement and acceptance rates
in physics
David Lazarus
Department of Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana, III. 61801
I am neither surprised nor dismayed at the Peters & Ceci (P &
C) finding - only somewhat put off by their righteous indignation at the peer-review system's being of finite value, particularly when used deceptively. Even in my science, physics,
which is by common consent (however misplaced!) regarded
as far less "subjective" than psychology, there is no way that we
can run a journal with even far higher acceptance rates (45% for
Physical Review Letters) without encountering enormous discrepancies between the opinions of different referees. In only
about 10-15% of cases do two referees agree on acceptance or
rejection the first time around - and this with the authors' and
institutional identities known! Remove these, or distort them
the way P & C have done, and I have no doubt that the
"accept" concurrences would drop. But so what? Since when
aren't a person's institution and reputation legitimate measures
of the value of his work? Good science is not and never has
been "objective," except to those who have never practiced it.

1328

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

tznsi0n @tznsi0n.bsky.social · 01/12/2024

Finally finished this #crona #souleater #fanart

24115

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 02/12/2024

Got really emotional (in a good way) over being able to care for my partner after surgery 🩷 I'm so blessed to have them in my life

000

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

Sheryl Weikal says Prosecute ICE @leftistlawyer.com · 30/11/2024

4. Even if it was medically possible...I'd die before I detransitioned. I'm a woman. I'll always be a woman. I would rather die a woman, die for the woman I am, then live a lie. That shit is torture.

360347

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham @paulgp.com · 30/11/2024

Economists love using linear regression to estimate treatment effects — it turns out that there are perils to this method, but also amazing perks Come with me in this 🧵 if you want to learn about our now-published paper "Contamination Bias in Linear Regressions!" 1/ (Twitter rerun!)

18403125

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 29/11/2024

Beanbag rounds and rubber bullets are still lethal, just significantly less so. Standard firearm safety protocol stands as far as things like muzzle and trigger discipline.

120

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

Andreas Diemer @andreasmdiemer.bsky.social · 29/11/2024

Thrilled to share that my paper “Spatial Diffusion of Local Economic Shocks in Social Networks: Evidence from the US Fracking Boom” was accepted at JOLE earlier this year. Full article here👉 doi.org/10.1086/732300. A short 🧵 below - my first on 🦋! @jlaborecon.bsky.social @sofi.su.se #econsky 1/7

journals.uchicago.edu

Spatial Diffusion of Local Economic Shocks in Social Networks: Evidence from the US Fracking Boom | Journal of Labor Economics: Vol 0, No ja

99731

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 26/11/2024

Expected to hate international trade but it's actually become one of my favorite classes as I wrap up my semester.

000

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

The Department of Economics, University of Toronto @econuoft.bsky.social · 25/11/2024

When male physicians have daughters, their female patients experience better health outcomes. That's according to research conducted by @tianyiwang.bsky.social and his co-authors. The results are described in a new working paper newsletter.economics.utoronto.ca/investigatin... #econsky

newsletter.economics.utoronto.ca

Investigating the Power of Physicians’ Daughters

When male physicians have daughters, their female patients experience better health outcomes. A new working paper by Professor Tianyi Wang of the Department of Economics and his co-authors suggests th...

02912

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 25/11/2024

I like the sheer amount of academics on this site and how easy it is to find their work. Very much enjoying anytime #econsky comes across my feed.

000

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 24/11/2024

as someone whose field consists of a lot of people making a bunch and doing fuckall you are spitting

130

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

Ioana Marinescu @imarinescu.bsky.social · 23/11/2024

#EconSky you can use the Bluesky data for free to do your research!!! Go find some cool stuff!

321569

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 23/11/2024

Just got to see ashley gavin and she was so funny omg my birthday celebration was amazing

010

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 21/11/2024

Follow my AOTY btw, it's in my bio. I review music. Sometimes.

000

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

💜Iris💜 @subwooferx3.bsky.social · 21/11/2024

i'm not a top artist but i'm a top artist

231

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 21/11/2024

Liberals acquiesced to fascists?! Oh my god, this has never happened before!

020

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 21/11/2024

Less than 3 weeks til my undergrad is finally done!

030

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 21/11/2024

Billionaire who has literally no problems and will feel zero consequences from the incoming administration: "C'mon guys it won't be that bad!"

02904

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

coach victryena 💪📋 @victryena.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

Today is Transgender Day of Remembrance. We are 4x more likely to be victims of violent crimes. 40% of us have attempted suicide. Especially given the current political climate, it's important to remember that existing, in and of itself, is a form of fighting. Keep existing. Keep fighting.

3695253

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

Bryce Tetraeder @brycetetraeder.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

We've done so much blow together.

460728

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

Kara Amens 🏳️‍🌈 @karads9.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

In the last 12 months there were 36 victims of violent acts against trans people The youngest was only 14 years old 7 in 10 victims were people of color And 4 in 10 victims were cruelly misgendered by police and media after their deaths Please remember these people whose only wanted to be themselves

2342154

Reposted by 🩷 Robin 🩷

river 🌸🌧️ @rohr.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

if you are trans you have to live

25918

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

have you considered that queer people arent corporate donors and therefore do not matter? 🧠

000

🩷 Robin 🩷 @robinteehee.bsky.social · 19/11/2024

At the end of the day I still really really really love my field :)

000