Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
LightNews LightNews
banner
asandovall.bsky.social
Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
@asandovall.bsky.social
220 followers 370 following 8 posts
Postdoctoral fellow at METRICS @stanford.edu
Interested in everything related to meta-research and evidence synthesis
https://sandovallentisco.github.io/
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
scientificdiscovery.dev
Big new blogpost!

My guide to data visualization, which includes a very long table of contents, tons of charts, and more.

--> Why data visualization matters and how to make charts more effective, clear, transparent, and sometimes, beautiful.
www.scientificdiscovery.dev/p/salonis-gu...
screenshot of my post
December 9, 2025 at 8:28 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
maravermj.bsky.social
@cimcyc.bsky.social is hiring!

SIX postdoc positions are coming up to dive into collaborative projects bridging together psychological science.

Amazing opportunity to boost a postdoc career in a cutting-edge research center with outstanding human teams!
👇🏽
cimcyc.ugr.es/en/informati...
Bridging Fields in Psychology and Neuroscience with Multidisciplinary Collaboration
Strengthening collaboration to encourage novel research connections between scientific areas is central to the CIMCYC - María de Maeztu Unit of Excellence strategy . To encourage this, the CIMCYC has ...
cimcyc.ugr.es
December 9, 2025 at 12:44 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
rorinstitute.bsky.social
🇬🇧 Big news for UK metascience: the government is trebling the UK Metascience Unit’s budget to £49m.

"This represents a resounding vote of confidence in the value and opportunities of metascience to improve the way the UK funds, manages and evaluates research", says RoRI's @jameswilsdon.bsky.social
December 8, 2025 at 1:35 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
ianhussey.mmmdata.io
Despite Prepublication Peer Review being a core part of science, training materials for it are sparse. This open source guide is very valuable for ECRs!

ecr-reviewers.gitlab.io/guide/
ECR Reviewers Platform
ecr-reviewers.gitlab.io
December 4, 2025 at 11:53 AM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
cos.io
Search for papers on reproducibility, replicability, or robustness and you’ll find plenty of results—and plenty of inconsistency in how those terms are used.

A new COS blog by Brian Nosek shares SCORE’s working definitions and links to a short preprint with more detail.

www.cos.io/blog/increas...
Increasing Precision of Terms Related to Reproducibility and Replicability
Search OpenAlex for reproducibility studies and you will find many papers. Search for replicability studies. Same. Search for robustness studies. Same. A lot of research has been done on these topics ...
www.cos.io
December 3, 2025 at 10:33 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
dsquintana.bsky.social
New preprint 🎉 Living systematic reviews ensure evidence stays current osf.io/preprints/ps...

In this brief comment (all four pages are here ⬇️), @iaiversen.bsky.social and I cover the benefits and challenges of living systematic reviews, along with two ways to increase their uptake

🧵 1/8
December 1, 2025 at 7:13 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
peercommunityin.bsky.social
In case you have missed Simine Vazire's excellent webinar yesterday, here is the link to watch it online: youtu.be/_vb1CNwC3CM Thanks again @simine.com for staying up so late and thanks to the audience for the great questions!
PCI Webinar series #13 - Simine Vazire - Recognizing and responding to a replication crisis
youtu.be
December 2, 2025 at 10:17 AM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
lindedomingo.bsky.social
Asking informally: does anyone know someone who might be interested in a postdoc focused on understanding changes in memory representations driven by attention using EEG? ⚡️Thanks!
December 1, 2025 at 5:03 AM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
metricstanford.bsky.social
METRICS is accepting applications for the 2026–27 postdoctoral fellowship in meta-research at Stanford. Deadline: Feb 15, 2026. Start date will be around Oct 1, 2026 (+/- 2 month flexibility). See: metrics.stanford.edu/postdoctoral... #MetaResearch #postdoc
Postdoctoral Fellowship Announcement 2026-27
metrics.stanford.edu
November 26, 2025 at 10:05 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
tomhardwicke.bsky.social
Job opportunity — Junior Professorship in Psychological Metascience @zpid.bsky.social leibniz-psychology.onlyfy.jobs/job/10kku5n7 h/t @bethclarke.bsky.social
November 26, 2025 at 3:10 AM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
i4replication.bsky.social
📢 We’re thrilled to announce the launch of our new “Research Fellows” program! 🎉

If you’ve contributed to a Replication Game, published in our Discussion Papers series, or helped organize one of our events — you’re invited to join the roster of I4R Research Fellows.
November 25, 2025 at 2:11 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
cos.io
Turning abstract policy into real-world practice is challenging, and sometimes messy. In the coming months, COS will highlight how we and other in the research community are putting the TOP Guidelines into action in real research settings.

💡 Learn more in our blog post:
From Policy to Practice: COS’s Commitment to Applying the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines
We recognize that policy efforts on their own can sometimes seem abstract — and even idealistic — to translate into real-world adoption. Over the next six months, we’ll be giving you a view into the nuanced and at times messy process of transforming policy into meaningful action.
www.cos.io
November 20, 2025 at 2:45 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
mavadillo.bsky.social
MDPI es una desgracia...
direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
November 20, 2025 at 10:43 AM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
dsquintana.bsky.social
There is no reason why systematic reviews can't be open. The data used for synthesis is *already* open and there are many excellent open source tools that can facilitate the easy sharing of analysis scripts.

Here's a nice guide for performing open systematic reviews doi.org/10.1525/coll...
This paper provides guidance and tools for conducting open and reproducible systematic reviews in psychology. It emphasizes the importance of systematic reviews for evidence-based decision-making and the growing adoption of open science practices. Open science enhances transparency, reproducibility, and minimizes bias in systematic reviews by sharing data, materials, and code. It also fosters collaborations and enables involvement of non-academic stakeholders. The paper is designed for beginners, offering accessible guidance to navigate the many standards and resources that may not obviously align with specific areas of psychology. It covers systematic review conduct standards, pre-registration, registered reports, reporting standards, and open data, materials and code. The paper is concluded with a glimpse of recent innovations like Community Augmented Meta-Analysis and independent reproducibility checks.
November 24, 2025 at 12:10 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
ucbitss.bsky.social
🗓️ Save the date: The next BITSS Annual Meeting is April 16, 2026! The conference will gather experts to discuss changes in academic publishing, AI, and current challenges to research transparency.

@cega-uc.bsky.social @tedmiguel.bsky.social
November 21, 2025 at 6:24 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
oscarlecuona.bsky.social
Just released my short course on Bayesian Data Analysis using JASP. Hope you find it useful!

📚Materials, scripts, data and links: doi.org/10.17605/OSF...

📺 Playlist: www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...

#StatsEd #Bayes #OpenScience #Statistics #Teaching
@rosenetwork.bsky.social
Bayesian Data Analysis with JASP: Course for the EAM - YouTube
Short course to cover Bayesian Data Analysis. Starts at the foundations of probability and statistical inference, how Bayesian inference is built and how it ...
www.youtube.com
November 21, 2025 at 3:23 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
reproducibiliteaum.bsky.social
Hola! El próximo lunes 24 de noviembre a las 16h tenemos una nueva reunión🥳. Discutiremos acerca del sistema de publicaciones con el artículo de Hanson et al. (2024) - The strain on scientific publishing (doi.org/10.1162/qss_...). Nos vemos!
The strain on scientific publishing
Abstract. Scientists are increasingly overwhelmed by the volume of articles being published. The total number of articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science has grown exponentially in recent years; ...
doi.org
November 20, 2025 at 12:06 AM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
mariomalicki.bsky.social
@METRICStanford is accepting applications for 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔-𝟐𝟕 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐚-𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡: metrics.stanford.edu/postdoctoral.... The deadline for applications is February 15, 2026, the position is expected to start at October 1, 2026.
November 19, 2025 at 5:49 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
mariomalicki.bsky.social
Tomorrow 9am PT time: 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡? by Niklas Bobrovitz and Stephana Moss, cover 38 metrics of reproducibility and 180 prevalence estimates. Registration at: stanford.zoom.us/meeting/regi...
November 17, 2025 at 6:58 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
dsquintana.bsky.social
Our paper on improving statistical reporting in psychology is now online 🎉

As a part of this paper, we also created the Transparent Statistical Reporting in Psychology checklist, which researchers can use to improve their statistical reporting practices

www.nature.com/articles/s44...
Transparent and comprehensive statistical reporting is critical for ensuring the credibility, reproducibility, and interpretability of psychological research. This paper offers a structured set of guidelines for reporting statistical analyses in quantitative psychology, emphasizing clarity at both the planning and results stages. Drawing on established recommendations and emerging best practices, we outline key decisions related to hypothesis formulation, sample size justification, preregistration, outlier and missing data handling, statistical model specification, and the interpretation of inferential outcomes. We address considerations across frequentist and Bayesian frameworks and fixed as well as sequential research designs, including guidance on effect size reporting, equivalence testing, and the appropriate treatment of null results. To facilitate implementation of these recommendations, we provide the Transparent Statistical Reporting in Psychology (TSRP) Checklist that researchers can use to systematically evaluate and improve their statistical reporting practices (https://osf.io/t2zpq/). In addition, we provide a curated list of freely available tools, packages, and functions that researchers can use to implement transparent reporting practices in their own analyses to bridge the gap between theory and practice. To illustrate the practical application of these principles, we provide a side-by-side comparison of insufficient versus best-practice reporting using a hypothetical cognitive psychology study. By adopting transparent reporting standards, researchers can improve the robustness of individual studies and facilitate cumulative scientific progress through more reliable meta-analyses and research syntheses.
November 14, 2025 at 8:43 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
drg.bsky.social
So @jamesheathers.bsky.social & I answer the burning question: does Cake cause Herpes? No, but one can torture the data to give that impression, and that's a problem. Promiscuous dichotomisation in biomedical science hugely increases spurious findings, best avoided
link.springer.com/article/10.1...
November 13, 2025 at 12:42 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
"Belief in the law of small numbers" as a way to understand the continuing appeal of junk science
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/11/12/b...
“Belief in the law of small numbers” as a way to understand the continuing appeal of junk science | Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu
November 12, 2025 at 2:43 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
paolocrosetto.bsky.social
What is the most profitable industry in the world, this side of the law? Not oil, not IT, not pharma.

It's *scientific publishing*.

We call this the Drain of Scientific Publishing.

Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Background: doi.org/10.1162/qss_...

Thread @markhanson.fediscience.org.ap.brid.gy 👇
November 12, 2025 at 10:31 AM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
hansonmark.bsky.social
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.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
lucyces.bsky.social
Poniendo los puntos sobre las íes 👏

Beigel, F., Brockington, D., Crosetto, P., Derrick, G., Fyfe, A., Barreiro, P. G., Hanson, M. A., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Noe, C., Pinfield, S., & Wilsdon, J. (2025). The Drain of Scientific Publishing (No. arXiv:2511.04820). arXiv. doi.org/10.48550/arX...
The Drain of Scientific Publishing
The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science. We need the most powerful members of the research community, funders, governments and ...
doi.org
November 10, 2025 at 5:19 PM