Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Mark Bray @mark-bray.bsky.social · 6h

Our plane to Spain is in the air!

🙌🙌

Thank you so much to the countless people supporting us in every way and in particular all of the Rutgers students and faculty who have supported us every step of the way.

240 760 5.8K

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 20h

I've got no idea what's going on there but the Q&A was better than average.

1

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 22h

I bet I could edit the sloppiest issue of molecular nanoskijumping.

1 3

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 1d

I keep getting these too, for like molecular bioparticlephysics of ski jumping or something. Maybe we should just do it, fuck it let it burn.

2 3

hakwan lau @hakwan.bsky.social · 1d

this paper takes me by surprise a bit. of coz, we all know Ned's been thinking along these lines for decades: philpapers.org/rec/BLOBVC
but is he really gonna seriously publish a new paper on this now, given all the AI hype & debates re: how unscientific some popular views on C are these days?

1/

1 6 23

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 1d

Is good.

(Haven't seen an Oatmeal in like a decade+!)

1

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 2d

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.

2

Henrik Singmann @singmann.bsky.social · 2d

I remember reading a blog post somewhat recently on here arguing that for open science practices every effort counts. So we should not expect every paper to fulfil all open science criteria immediately but researcher should start by making their data open, then their code, etc. Anyone has a link?

1 2 4

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 2d

bsky.app/profile/pci-...

Peer Community in Registered Reports @pci-regreports.bsky.social · Jun 17

NEW: Statement from the PCI RR Managing Board on the withdrawal of Infant and Child Development as a PCI RR-friendly journal, and the decision by Wiley to refuse preprints that have been peer-reviewed by @peercommunityin.bsky.social / @pci-regreports.bsky.social

Read here ➡️ osf.io/tn8mh

In 2024, Infant and Child Development (ICD) withdrew as a PCI RR-friendly journal and reneged on three Stage 1 recommendations issued by PCI RR. In addition, Wiley – the publisher of ICD – notified PCI RR and the PCI core team of its decision to withdraw all Wiley journals from PCI and PCI RR, including an additional 9 PCI-friendly journals. Finally, Wiley appears to have banned all of its ~1600 journals from considering submissions that have been previously reviewed by PCI or PCI RR. This statement explains the history of ICD joining PCI RR and developments that led to the current outcome. The PCI RR Managing Board believes that this shift in policy to become “PCI-hostile” renders Wiley journals incompatible not only with community-based preprint review but with preprint archiving in general.

1 2

Bastian Jaeger @bxjaeger.bsky.social · 2d

🐶Now out at JNB🐶

We examine the prevalence and psychological correlates of lay beliefs in physiognomy - the idea that a person's character is reflected in their facial appearance.

link.springer.com/article/10.1...

1 3 6

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 2d

Yup, that's exactly it.

1

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 3d

Bibliography formatting: the real reason it takes ten years of higher ed to get a PhD.

2

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 3d

Strong endorsement for typst: typst.app/universe/pac...

1 3

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 3d

I think that's a partial eta squared right? It's used a lot in anova but kinda tricky when you have non-controlled covariates (ES inflates with your covariates). Would probably avoid along with other standardized "effect sizes".

5

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 3d

Yeah, very interesting thanks. Great to see that you've included these per-stimulus plots in the paper too!

1 1

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 6d

What's the tab-autocomplete-index for kruschke? Gelman? (Look forward to reading this.)

1

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 6d

Ive always listened to a lot of internet radio (somafm.com/player24/sta... is legendary) but we also recently bought a physical radio and are loving it. Random ads? Check. No choice over music? Check. This actually makes it less distracting ime

2

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 8d

This is absolutely why I've been feeling better about myself lately. I always ask "extremely important" and "insightful" questions, and my answers frequently "nail it 💯".

Steve Rathje @steverathje.bsky.social · 8d

🚨 New preprint 🚨

Across 3 experiments (n = 3,285), we found that interacting with sycophantic (or overly agreeable) AI chatbots entrenched attitudes and led to inflated self-perceptions.

Yet, people preferred sycophantic chatbots and viewed them as unbiased!

osf.io/preprints/ps...

Thread 🧵

1 4

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 8d

It does look better but is still extremely slow and has inappropriately low information density. Hoping for these to improve. We consistently get ~10kb/s download speeds which is not fun for large data.

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 8d

And yes this comment absolutely made before reading the paper, but curious if it's something you thought about here too.

1 1

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 8d

Super cool, thanks for sharing. I remember thinking about something related; is it possible that the pattern reflects some kind of missingness? In the top panel, it might just be really hard to get stimuli that elicit ratings for the top left and bottom right corners?

1 1

Steve Rathje @steverathje.bsky.social · 8d

🚨 New preprint 🚨

Across 3 experiments (n = 3,285), we found that interacting with sycophantic (or overly agreeable) AI chatbots entrenched attitudes and led to inflated self-perceptions.

Yet, people preferred sycophantic chatbots and viewed them as unbiased!

osf.io/preprints/ps...

Thread 🧵

3 83 160

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 10d

Reviewing papers

an elderly woman is reading a piece of paper with the words `` what is happening ? '' below her .

ALT: an elderly woman is reading a piece of paper with the words `` what is happening ? '' below her .

media.tenor.com

1

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 11d

This is great. I really like how well tinytable works across different formats.

2

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 12d

It's the lme4::sleepstudy dataset!

3

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 12d

Any reasoned discussion on this would be outcome/topic/study-specific. We once set these limits based on a d required to subjectively feel a difference in Y, but even that relies on iffy assumptions about measurement invariance.

2

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 12d

I think functions that calculate ropes/equivalence tests, and the like, should not set defaults but instead error out with "results completely depend on this argument, user input based on theory required".

2

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 12d

It's completely arbitrary (variously defended by appeals to Cohen, empirics, or numerology.) Sadly the cult of standardized "effect sizes" serves only to reinforce the faulty idea that we can have general benchmarks like this. I argue that .1 is even worse than 0, at least the latter delineates +/-.

1 3

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 13d

Oh cool I didn't know about those. My tables are too boring for any styling...

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 13d

100% this, especially with Wiley given their anti-preprint stance.

Francesco Poli @francescopoli.bsky.social · 13d

Why are we still sending our work to Wiley and other publishing companies so that they can profit from it? There's so many better options now, for example: psychopen.eu/journals/

1 5 14