Olmo van den Akker
@denolmo.bsky.social
Postdoc @ QUEST Center for Responsible Research & Tilburg University. Doing meta-research aimed at improving preregistration, secondary data analysis, and peer review.
Proposal to use more nicknames when talking about scientific researchers, the fun of which is nicely illustrated by James "cheaters' bane" Heathers in his acknowledgement slide.
#AIMOS2025
@jamesheathers.bsky.social
#AIMOS2025
@jamesheathers.bsky.social
November 20, 2025 at 2:57 AM
Proposal to use more nicknames when talking about scientific researchers, the fun of which is nicely illustrated by James "cheaters' bane" Heathers in his acknowledgement slide.
#AIMOS2025
@jamesheathers.bsky.social
#AIMOS2025
@jamesheathers.bsky.social
Slide by Lisa Bero on commercial funding of research. No further comment necessary, I think.
#AIMOS2025
#AIMOS2025
November 18, 2025 at 11:46 PM
Slide by Lisa Bero on commercial funding of research. No further comment necessary, I think.
#AIMOS2025
#AIMOS2025
What is the best reporting guideline acronym? ROB-ME by @mjpages.bsky.social gets my preliminary vote.
Any other good ones, #AIMOS2025?
Any other good ones, #AIMOS2025?
ROB-ME: a tool for assessing risk of bias due to missing evidence in systematic reviews with meta-analysis
Various methods are available to help users assess whether selective non-publication of studies or selective non-reporting of study results has occurred, but not its impact on a meta-analysis. This li...
doi.org
November 18, 2025 at 11:33 PM
What is the best reporting guideline acronym? ROB-ME by @mjpages.bsky.social gets my preliminary vote.
Any other good ones, #AIMOS2025?
Any other good ones, #AIMOS2025?
Reposted by Olmo van den Akker
🔓 It's great to see authors sharing their experiences with publishing on MetaROR (MetaResearch Open Review) — our open review platform for metascience using the publish–review–curate model: www.openscience.nl/en/cases/the...
September 9, 2025 at 11:42 AM
🔓 It's great to see authors sharing their experiences with publishing on MetaROR (MetaResearch Open Review) — our open review platform for metascience using the publish–review–curate model: www.openscience.nl/en/cases/the...
Reposted by Olmo van den Akker
We are about a month away from releasing a complete refresh of the OSF user interface. The team has been working on this for a very long time, and we are very excited to be able to share it soon. A preview picture:
September 4, 2025 at 9:57 PM
We are about a month away from releasing a complete refresh of the OSF user interface. The team has been working on this for a very long time, and we are very excited to be able to share it soon. A preview picture:
Many interesting tidbits in @simine.com's talk. A selection:
- Journal prestige depends on factors like aims and scope, selectivity, and impact factor, but changes in these factors do not always lead to changes in journal prestige - journal prestige is sticky
#PRC10
- Journal prestige depends on factors like aims and scope, selectivity, and impact factor, but changes in these factors do not always lead to changes in journal prestige - journal prestige is sticky
#PRC10
September 4, 2025 at 10:22 PM
Many interesting tidbits in @simine.com's talk. A selection:
- Journal prestige depends on factors like aims and scope, selectivity, and impact factor, but changes in these factors do not always lead to changes in journal prestige - journal prestige is sticky
#PRC10
- Journal prestige depends on factors like aims and scope, selectivity, and impact factor, but changes in these factors do not always lead to changes in journal prestige - journal prestige is sticky
#PRC10
eLife (talk by Nicola Adamson) uses a publish-review-curate method and uses common terms to assess manuscripts.
For strength of evidence: exceptional, compelling, convincing, solid, incomplete, & inadequate
For significance of findings: landmark, fundamental, important, valuable, & useful
#PRC10
For strength of evidence: exceptional, compelling, convincing, solid, incomplete, & inadequate
For significance of findings: landmark, fundamental, important, valuable, & useful
#PRC10
September 4, 2025 at 7:17 PM
eLife (talk by Nicola Adamson) uses a publish-review-curate method and uses common terms to assess manuscripts.
For strength of evidence: exceptional, compelling, convincing, solid, incomplete, & inadequate
For significance of findings: landmark, fundamental, important, valuable, & useful
#PRC10
For strength of evidence: exceptional, compelling, convincing, solid, incomplete, & inadequate
For significance of findings: landmark, fundamental, important, valuable, & useful
#PRC10
New peer review dataset incoming!
Involves authors, topic area, editorial decision, author characteristics (institutional prestige, region, gender), BoRE evaluations, review characteristics (length, sentiment, z-score, reviewer gender).
(Talk by Aaron Clauset)
#PRC10
Involves authors, topic area, editorial decision, author characteristics (institutional prestige, region, gender), BoRE evaluations, review characteristics (length, sentiment, z-score, reviewer gender).
(Talk by Aaron Clauset)
#PRC10
September 4, 2025 at 7:01 PM
New peer review dataset incoming!
Involves authors, topic area, editorial decision, author characteristics (institutional prestige, region, gender), BoRE evaluations, review characteristics (length, sentiment, z-score, reviewer gender).
(Talk by Aaron Clauset)
#PRC10
Involves authors, topic area, editorial decision, author characteristics (institutional prestige, region, gender), BoRE evaluations, review characteristics (length, sentiment, z-score, reviewer gender).
(Talk by Aaron Clauset)
#PRC10
Christos Kotanidis checked differences in abstracts between submissions and published papers & assessed whether these differences indicated higher or lower research quality.
Abstracts typically improved, especially in big five medical journals. Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review?
#PRC10
Abstracts typically improved, especially in big five medical journals. Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review?
#PRC10
September 4, 2025 at 6:59 PM
Christos Kotanidis checked differences in abstracts between submissions and published papers & assessed whether these differences indicated higher or lower research quality.
Abstracts typically improved, especially in big five medical journals. Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review?
#PRC10
Abstracts typically improved, especially in big five medical journals. Evidence for the effectiveness of peer review?
#PRC10
Andrea Corvillon on distributed vs. panel peer review at the ALMA Observatory:
Most experienced PIs no longer have the best ranks in a distributed review system, but why that is remains unclear.
#PRC10
Most experienced PIs no longer have the best ranks in a distributed review system, but why that is remains unclear.
#PRC10
September 4, 2025 at 4:33 PM
Andrea Corvillon on distributed vs. panel peer review at the ALMA Observatory:
Most experienced PIs no longer have the best ranks in a distributed review system, but why that is remains unclear.
#PRC10
Most experienced PIs no longer have the best ranks in a distributed review system, but why that is remains unclear.
#PRC10
Interesting to see that the conference review process (and publishing norms) are do different in the field of computer science compared to other fields.
How do these differences come about? Fundamental differences between fields or chance and inertia?
#PRC10
How do these differences come about? Fundamental differences between fields or chance and inertia?
#PRC10
September 4, 2025 at 4:20 PM
Interesting to see that the conference review process (and publishing norms) are do different in the field of computer science compared to other fields.
How do these differences come about? Fundamental differences between fields or chance and inertia?
#PRC10
How do these differences come about? Fundamental differences between fields or chance and inertia?
#PRC10
Di Girolamo explains why the use of the phrase "to our knowledge" lacks reproducibility and accountability.
Good trigger to make an edit in a grant proposal I'm writing.
#PRC10
Good trigger to make an edit in a grant proposal I'm writing.
#PRC10
September 4, 2025 at 3:04 PM
Di Girolamo explains why the use of the phrase "to our knowledge" lacks reproducibility and accountability.
Good trigger to make an edit in a grant proposal I'm writing.
#PRC10
Good trigger to make an edit in a grant proposal I'm writing.
#PRC10
Data repurposing: taking existing data and reusing it for a different purpose.
(Presentation by Yulin Yu)
Studies repurposing data are at higher risk of bias, so make sure to preregister them (check here for a template): research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publicati...
#PRC10
(Presentation by Yulin Yu)
Studies repurposing data are at higher risk of bias, so make sure to preregister them (check here for a template): research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publicati...
#PRC10
September 4, 2025 at 2:40 PM
Data repurposing: taking existing data and reusing it for a different purpose.
(Presentation by Yulin Yu)
Studies repurposing data are at higher risk of bias, so make sure to preregister them (check here for a template): research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publicati...
#PRC10
(Presentation by Yulin Yu)
Studies repurposing data are at higher risk of bias, so make sure to preregister them (check here for a template): research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publicati...
#PRC10
Ian Bulovic used OpenAI's GPT to assess selective outcome reporting.
Findings:
- Much outcome switching but decrease over time
- Industry-sponsored trials most at risk
- Assessing outcome switching may seem trivial but is even hard for human coders
#PRC10
Findings:
- Much outcome switching but decrease over time
- Industry-sponsored trials most at risk
- Assessing outcome switching may seem trivial but is even hard for human coders
#PRC10
September 4, 2025 at 2:19 PM
Ian Bulovic used OpenAI's GPT to assess selective outcome reporting.
Findings:
- Much outcome switching but decrease over time
- Industry-sponsored trials most at risk
- Assessing outcome switching may seem trivial but is even hard for human coders
#PRC10
Findings:
- Much outcome switching but decrease over time
- Industry-sponsored trials most at risk
- Assessing outcome switching may seem trivial but is even hard for human coders
#PRC10
A meta-perspective by Malcolm Macleod on the presentations at #PRC10.
Are we going for low hanging fruit too much in research on peer review / publication?
Are we going for low hanging fruit too much in research on peer review / publication?
September 4, 2025 at 1:23 PM
A meta-perspective by Malcolm Macleod on the presentations at #PRC10.
Are we going for low hanging fruit too much in research on peer review / publication?
Are we going for low hanging fruit too much in research on peer review / publication?
A question to kickstart day 2 of #PRC10:
How would you measure the quality of peer reviews in a scientific study?
Single question? Scale? How many raters? AI?
How would you measure the quality of peer reviews in a scientific study?
Single question? Scale? How many raters? AI?
September 4, 2025 at 12:32 PM
A question to kickstart day 2 of #PRC10:
How would you measure the quality of peer reviews in a scientific study?
Single question? Scale? How many raters? AI?
How would you measure the quality of peer reviews in a scientific study?
Single question? Scale? How many raters? AI?
Leslie McIntosh:
Markers of (dis)trust in science: Pay attention to email addresses (use of hotmail.com and underscores) and institutional affiliations (new and unknown organizations without verifiable addresses)
#PRC10
Markers of (dis)trust in science: Pay attention to email addresses (use of hotmail.com and underscores) and institutional affiliations (new and unknown organizations without verifiable addresses)
#PRC10
September 3, 2025 at 4:55 PM
Leslie McIntosh:
Markers of (dis)trust in science: Pay attention to email addresses (use of hotmail.com and underscores) and institutional affiliations (new and unknown organizations without verifiable addresses)
#PRC10
Markers of (dis)trust in science: Pay attention to email addresses (use of hotmail.com and underscores) and institutional affiliations (new and unknown organizations without verifiable addresses)
#PRC10
John Ioannidis: "We need more RCTs"
I agree, so here is an urgent call to the representatives of journals at #PRC10: Let's empirically test suggested improvements to peer review like open reports, open identities, structured review, results-free review, collaborative review, etc.
Get in touch!
I agree, so here is an urgent call to the representatives of journals at #PRC10: Let's empirically test suggested improvements to peer review like open reports, open identities, structured review, results-free review, collaborative review, etc.
Get in touch!
September 3, 2025 at 4:42 PM
John Ioannidis: "We need more RCTs"
I agree, so here is an urgent call to the representatives of journals at #PRC10: Let's empirically test suggested improvements to peer review like open reports, open identities, structured review, results-free review, collaborative review, etc.
Get in touch!
I agree, so here is an urgent call to the representatives of journals at #PRC10: Let's empirically test suggested improvements to peer review like open reports, open identities, structured review, results-free review, collaborative review, etc.
Get in touch!
How do paper mills operate? I always thought they were in cahoots with illegitimate journals but apparently they target normal journals as well, with the editors of those journals playing no role.
(Talk by Tim Kersjes from Springer Nature)
Could open review reports solve this issue?
#PRC10
(Talk by Tim Kersjes from Springer Nature)
Could open review reports solve this issue?
#PRC10
September 3, 2025 at 3:39 PM
How do paper mills operate? I always thought they were in cahoots with illegitimate journals but apparently they target normal journals as well, with the editors of those journals playing no role.
(Talk by Tim Kersjes from Springer Nature)
Could open review reports solve this issue?
#PRC10
(Talk by Tim Kersjes from Springer Nature)
Could open review reports solve this issue?
#PRC10
@royperlis.bsky.social based on a study using Pangram to detect AI use in papers: "Less than 25% of authors using GenAI are disclosing its use"
Why is this the case? Do people feel shame for using AI to improve their studies / papers? Do journals discourage (disclosure of) AI use?
#PRC10
Why is this the case? Do people feel shame for using AI to improve their studies / papers? Do journals discourage (disclosure of) AI use?
#PRC10
September 3, 2025 at 2:57 PM
@royperlis.bsky.social based on a study using Pangram to detect AI use in papers: "Less than 25% of authors using GenAI are disclosing its use"
Why is this the case? Do people feel shame for using AI to improve their studies / papers? Do journals discourage (disclosure of) AI use?
#PRC10
Why is this the case? Do people feel shame for using AI to improve their studies / papers? Do journals discourage (disclosure of) AI use?
#PRC10
Start of the talk by @mariomalicki.bsky.social: "Only 0.1% of journals provide some sort of open peer review"
Shockingly low number for something that should be standard given that reviews are part of the scientific discourse and therefore should be public.
#PRC10
Shockingly low number for something that should be standard given that reviews are part of the scientific discourse and therefore should be public.
#PRC10
September 3, 2025 at 2:11 PM
Start of the talk by @mariomalicki.bsky.social: "Only 0.1% of journals provide some sort of open peer review"
Shockingly low number for something that should be standard given that reviews are part of the scientific discourse and therefore should be public.
#PRC10
Shockingly low number for something that should be standard given that reviews are part of the scientific discourse and therefore should be public.
#PRC10
What do researchers use AI for?
Talk by Isamme Al Fayyad on the first study from his PhD @maastrichtu.bsky.social
#PRC10
Talk by Isamme Al Fayyad on the first study from his PhD @maastrichtu.bsky.social
#PRC10
September 3, 2025 at 1:44 PM
What do researchers use AI for?
Talk by Isamme Al Fayyad on the first study from his PhD @maastrichtu.bsky.social
#PRC10
Talk by Isamme Al Fayyad on the first study from his PhD @maastrichtu.bsky.social
#PRC10
TIL: In biomedicine there is a thing called "medical writers" who are hired to prepare papers for publication, and write regulatory documents and grant proposals.
Questions: Why aren't the researchers writing papers themselves? Should medical writers be authors on the resulting papers?
#PRC10
Questions: Why aren't the researchers writing papers themselves? Should medical writers be authors on the resulting papers?
#PRC10
September 3, 2025 at 1:35 PM
TIL: In biomedicine there is a thing called "medical writers" who are hired to prepare papers for publication, and write regulatory documents and grant proposals.
Questions: Why aren't the researchers writing papers themselves? Should medical writers be authors on the resulting papers?
#PRC10
Questions: Why aren't the researchers writing papers themselves? Should medical writers be authors on the resulting papers?
#PRC10
Reposted by Olmo van den Akker
We found that the results of 42% of registered studies on the OSF are never publicly shared journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/.... Most common reasons are null results and bad logistics. Plan your studies carefully (equivalence testing and good time management) to prevent research waste!
August 7, 2025 at 2:41 PM
We found that the results of 42% of registered studies on the OSF are never publicly shared journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/.... Most common reasons are null results and bad logistics. Plan your studies carefully (equivalence testing and good time management) to prevent research waste!
Reposted by Olmo van den Akker
Simulation studies are widely used, but have historically lacked clear guidance around preregistration.
In response to this gap, a team of researchers have developed a new template for preregistering simulation studies, now available on OSF.
🚀 Read our Q&A: www.cos.io/blog/intr...
In response to this gap, a team of researchers have developed a new template for preregistering simulation studies, now available on OSF.
🚀 Read our Q&A: www.cos.io/blog/intr...
Introducing the Simulation Studies Preregistration Template: Q&A with Björn S. Siepe, František Bartoš, and Samuel Pawel
Initially submitted through COS’s open call for community-designed preregistration templates, the Simulation Studies Template is now part of the expanding collection of preregistration resources available on the OSF.
www.cos.io
July 29, 2025 at 3:48 PM
Simulation studies are widely used, but have historically lacked clear guidance around preregistration.
In response to this gap, a team of researchers have developed a new template for preregistering simulation studies, now available on OSF.
🚀 Read our Q&A: www.cos.io/blog/intr...
In response to this gap, a team of researchers have developed a new template for preregistering simulation studies, now available on OSF.
🚀 Read our Q&A: www.cos.io/blog/intr...