iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by Bada Yang

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · 24/09/2026

The integrity of evidence synthesis is threatened by problematic randomised controlled trials. These may be fraudulent, or subject to critical errors. INSPECT-SR is a tool to assess trustworthiness of RCTs - out today: www.bmj.com/content/394/...

bmj.com

INSPECT-SR tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials

The integrity of evidence synthesis is threatened by problematic randomised controlled trials, where there are serious concerns about the trustworthiness of the data or findings. Such concerns could b...

12415

Reposted by Bada Yang

Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 20/07/2026

New paper out now 🥳 When psychologists discuss generalisability, they often refer to vague notions of representativeness. We provide an accessible intro to the total survey error framework as a tool to reason about this more rigorously. w @taymalsalti.bsky.social @ruben.the100.ci >

Thinking Clearly About Sampling and Representation With the Total Survey Error Framework

Collecting a sample that represents the population of interest well constitutes a challenge across the social and behavioural sciences. Psychology in particular frequently relies on convenience samples—most notably students and, increasingly, online participants—with a tendency to either (implicitly) assume representativeness without substantive justification, or to acknowledge a lack of it only in passing. In contrast, researchers rarely engage with the actual implications for their inferences, which undermines the generalisability of psychological findings. Critically, representativeness must be defined with respect to variables relevant to the target of inference, rather than superficial demographic diversity. Here we present the Total Survey Error (TSE) framework as a methodological tool that systematically addresses the multifaceted sources of error—particularly those related to representation—that emerge throughout the research cycle. Although TSE originated in survey research, its principles are broadly applicable to any psychological study seeking inference from sample to population. We offer practical strategies for identifying, preventing, and mitigating representation errors to improve the credibility and generalisability of psychological research.

Illustration of the total survey error framework with the representation strand highlighted. It shows how coverage error, sampling error and non-response error arise during the sampling process.

1027797

Bada Yang @yangbd.bsky.social · 01/04/2026

The importance of involving a statistician in your trial

000

Reposted by Bada Yang

Colby Vorland @colbyvorland.bsky.social · 10/01/2026

I launched version 3.0 of my browser extension "Lazy Scholar", a free in-browser research assistant. It opens automatically when you load an academic article. See: lazyscholar.org/2026/01/10/l...

25015

Reposted by Bada Yang

Dorothy Bishop @deevybee.bsky.social · 05/01/2026

How long should it take to retract a paper with incontrovertible signs of data fabrication? Sleuths think 2 months is too long, particularly when clinical risks are involved. deevybee.blogspot.com/2026/01/an-o... #retraction #stemcells #cardiology @erictopol.bsky.social

deevybee.blogspot.com

An Open Letter to the BMJ Editorial Board

to: Editor in chief, Kamran Abbasi , kabbasi@bmj.com Executive editor, Theodora Bloom , tbloom@bmj.com Head of research, Elizab...

16932

Reposted by Bada Yang

Monica H Green @monicamedhist.bsky.social · 19/12/2025

This report in Nature on the costs of competing for & administering scientific grants is shocking: "In other words, European taxpayers will have spent more on the funding process than on the funding itself, and the scientific ecosystem has been drained." www.nature.com/articles/d41... 🧪

nature.com

Point of no returns: researchers are crossing a threshold in the fight for funding

With so little money to go round, the costs of competing for grants can exceed what the grants are worth. When that happens, nobody wins.

8425241

Reposted by Bada Yang

Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 11/11/2025

We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing: a 🧵 1/n Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820 Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/... Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...

A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below.

1. The four-fold drain
1.1 Money
Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for
whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who
created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis,
which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024
alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit
margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher
(Elsevier) always over 37%.
Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most
consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial
difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor &
Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American
researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The
Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3
billion in that year.

A figure detailing the drain on researcher time.

1. The four-fold drain

1.2 Time
The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce,
with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure
1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material
has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs,
grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for
profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time.
The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million
unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of
peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting
widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the
authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many
review demands.
Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of
scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in
‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow
progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to
volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier,
local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with
limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging
with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks
intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision.

A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below:

1. The four-fold drain
1.1 Money
Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for
whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who
created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis,
which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024
alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit
margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher
(Elsevier) always over 37%.
Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most
consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial
difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor &
Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American
researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The
Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3
billion in that year.

The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised
scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers
first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour
resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.

8644453

Reposted by Bada Yang

Michel Nivard @michelnivard.bsky.social · 20/12/2025

This smells distinctly like collider bias and/or selection bias and/or regression to the mean... You simply can't select teen prodigies, and world class athletes rom databases, and go run regressions without serious consideration of the selection process!

2334869

Reposted by Bada Yang

Health Nerd @gidmk.bsky.social · 17/12/2025

This is a fun one. Vitamin D for Mongolian schoolchildren. The main study has been cited hundreds of times, it forms a large part of many meta-analyses showing that vitamin D reduces the incidence of respiratory infections.

12710

Reposted by Bada Yang

Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 17/12/2025

You remember that Nature Aging paper about how multilingualism protects against accelerated aging? Well…

916953

Reposted by Bada Yang

Carl T. Bergstrom @carlbergstrom.com · 04/02/2025

Modern-Day Oracles or Bullshit Machines? Jevin West (@jevinwest.bsky.social) and I have spent the last eight months developing the course on large language models (LLMs) that we think every college freshman needs to take. thebullshitmachines.com

thebullshitmachines.com

INTRODUCTION

17528051006

Reposted by Bada Yang

James Larkin @jameslarkin13.bsky.social · 18/11/2025

"I'm not influenced." "My colleagues are influenced, but I'm not." "I have ties with all the, companies, so I'm not influenced by any.” Lisa Bero describing the ways people rationalise their conflicts of interest, opening the #AIMOS2025 conference @aimosinc.bsky.social

2289

Reposted by Bada Yang

Elisabeth Bik @elisabethbik.bsky.social · 09/11/2025

Reformation of science publishing: the Stockholm Declaration A call to action for universities, academies, science organizations and funders to unite and join this effort. Bernhard Sabel and Dan Larhammar royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/...

royalsocietypublishing.org

Reformation of science publishing: the Stockholm Declaration | Royal Society Open Science

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....

38144

Reposted by Bada Yang

Dorothy Bishop @deevybee.bsky.social · 02/11/2025

@bmj.com Please look at PubPeer comments on an article you published last week. pubpeer.com/publications... I think your research integrity dept shld act swiftly on this one, given clinical significance. I'm aware of even more evidence of problems so let me know if this is not sufficient.

pubpeer.com

PubPeer - Prevention of acute myocardial infarction induced heart fail...

There are comments on PubPeer for publication: Prevention of acute myocardial infarction induced heart failure by intracoronary infusion of mesenchymal stem cells: phase 3 randomised clinical trial (P...

66531

Reposted by Bada Yang

Cochrane Denmark & CEBMO @cochranedkcebmo.bsky.social · 18/09/2025

Tool for Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Trials (TACIT), included in systematic reviews, is now available! Developed by experts led by Lundh & Hróbjartsson at Cochrane Denmark. Try the unpublished tool: osf.io/5fzv3/. Learn more at www.tacit.one and share feedback with @alundh.bsky.social!

osf.io

Tool for Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Trials (TACIT)

Resources for users of Tool for Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Trials (TACIT) for use in systematic reviews: 1. The TACIT Grid - a template for completing assessments (unpublished 2 September 202...

032

Reposted by Bada Yang

Richard McElreath 🐈‍⬛ @rmcelreath.bsky.social · 19/06/2025

While *ideal* impact factor is well known to be a bad proxy of article quality, it is less well known that *actual* impact factor is negotiated and gamed by journals. You think Nature earned that impact factor? You think that's air you're breathing? (see e.g. journals.plos.org/plosmedicine...)

16423

Bada Yang @yangbd.bsky.social · 26/06/2025

🤔 Which risk-of-bias tool is appropriate for a diagnosis or prognosis study? Systematic review authors frequently ask this question. There are at least 14 tools, and the choice depends on your research question and aims. ⏩ Find out, in our overview and guidance (open access): tinyurl.com/3ry6n9d2

010

Bada Yang @yangbd.bsky.social · 13/06/2025

❓ In people with HIV, is using two different rapid tests together ('parallel testing') to diagnose TB more accurate than using only one? An 'incremental' accuracy question: few Cochrane Reviews have yet addressed such questions. Adult review: shorturl.at/r9CUG Child review: shorturl.at/nSosK

022