Thank you!

I'd be interested in reading these papers once they're out or the registrations if they are already openly available somewhere.

If there's something to read on these projects already, could you point me to it? Looking forward to seeing the results! :)

New academic year, new online journal club! 📖

October 6th 12:00-14:00 (CEST). This time we will discuss the paper by Bright (2021): 'Why do scientists lie?'.

Are you an early-career academic, and want to join?

You can sign up here: forms.gle/32ZNxQDkY5vy...

Monday I sent a survey pre-notification to potential participants

I didn't expect so many to reply with interest to that email. Wishing me luck with my PhD and saying they will surely participate in my interesting study

Good reminder that people can be so nice

Hoping for a nice response rate too🤞

For neurofeedback (a form of biofeedback) I know that there is quite some research on it. My (far from expert) take on the literature two years ago was that the conflicts of interest were huge (papers written by distributers of the equipment) and only non-RCT's were able to find effects.

A new preregistration template for simulation studies is now live on OSF. Thanks to the creators and the preregistration template working group for proposing and shepherding this to make it available to users.

See the post if you would like to propose a new template.

www.cos.io/blog/introdu...

Awesome Raphael!! Such a cool project with already tangible results and implementations. Well-earned spot on the list of commendations

This is a great example of why it’s so important that open science tools are actually easy to use, something I highlighted in a recent blog post:

Join our online journal club meeting next Monday July 21st (12 - 14 CEST), and discuss a paper with fellow ECRs!

This time, we will discuss the following paper:
Romero, F. (2019). Philosophy of science and replicability crisis

Sign up using this link: forms.gle/gRWf6SEyf2ki...

See you there!

First time presenting at a big conference: check!

So happy to see how the community of PYMS is growing over the last couple of days, and how people are constantly finding each other to hang out at #metascience2025. This is what PYMS is all about!

I’ve been thinking a lot about the interaction yesterday at the #metascience2025 panel on AI and more generally how I’ve felt about the conference and how I fit into the metascience community, and here’s a potentially useful analogy… 🌈

thread👇

I'll be presenting at the Metascience conference next week, who will I see there? 🙋‍♀️

Looking forward to it!

What if you want to deviate from you preregistration but keep the label "confirmatory"? Cas Goos introduces multi-stage registration as a solution.

Read all about it in the semi-new (I somehow missed a month of blogging?) blog post from the Meta-Research Center:

metaresearch.nl/blog/2025/5/...

The main point I want to make is that we shouldn't take usability of a solution for granted just because it produces the 'correct' output. That doesn't mean that behavior change isn't happening yet right now, because it definitely is (which is great!) [2/2]

Yes that is totally true and it is also clear that that is helping and changing behavior (e.g., more people than ever are preregistering their studies).

I also think that teaching or workshops in itself is a great way to test the usability of a solution. [1/2]

Thank you! This is exactly the kind of thing I have been looking for but could not find

Agreed, it would be better to have a peer-reviewed piece out there. Maybe I should put some time into that...

STS is a good suggestion, but I am not familiar enough to know how to find these specific papers. If you find something, let me know!

I agree. I think it is difficult to get these different worlds together, the main reason probably being money. Metascientists want to develop free and opensource tools (and rightfully so), but marketing/design experts need to be payed for their labor that makes it difficult to work together

Could you explain what you mean exactly? Do you mean that there is actually a lot more testing going on but that this is just not reported on?

I don't, actually. This is also why I decided to write this down myself. I have tried to find papers stating similar arguments but I haven't been able to find them. If anyone knows of any, I would love to get them tipped to be able to read them :)

(You could of course cite the blog itself 🙂)

Haha, true! I promise that was not the direct inspiration for this post 😇

Are you planning to submit the package to CRAN? I would love to be able to use it myself, I think it is a great tool to have!

Right?? Shiny apps for power calculations have taken many hours of my life... 😅