This is a terrible policy!

It's pretty bonkers

What issue unites Coalition, Labor, Green, teal and One Nation voters? Whistleblower protections.
– Kieran Pender in @crikey.com.au

Australia Institute research found 86% of Australians want stronger protection for whistleblowers, consistent across all voting intentions. #auspol

And reduce social media use

@i4replication.bsky.social looking for a co-director to develop guidelines & help reduce the amount of PII that careless researchers release into the wild

"In extremely rare move, Harvard revokes tenure and cuts ties with star business professor" Francesca Gino

📌

The difference between Grok and a DOGE employee is that Grok will acknowledge being reprogrammed by Musk

I think you misspelled "cult"

“Extending‌ ‌previous‌ ‌work,‌ ‌we‌ ‌vary‌ ‌the‌ ‌race,‌ ‌gender,‌ ‌and‌ ‌topic‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌constituent’s‌ ‌message, and we‌ observe ‌if elected‌ ‌officials ‌both open‌ ‌and‌ ‌reply‌ ‌to‌ ‌constituents’ messages‌.‌ ‌ We ‌find‌ ‌that‌ ‌Black‌ ‌men‌ ‌are systematically ignored, regardless of the message they send.‌” link.springer.com/article/10.1...

New from me: Everything feels overwhelming. But here is a tangible thing you can do: write a comment to oppose Trump's plan to convert 50,000 career civil servants into political appointees. Deadline is May 23. Please share!
donmoynihan.substack.com/p/here-is-a-...

Nice.

arxiv.org/abs/2402.04607

ABS to planning to remove the Basic Microdata from the 2026 Australian Census data release and replace it with synthetic data. A major backwards step. Synthetic data will be unable to capture the complexity of interactions the microdata will show. #Census2026 www.abs.gov.au/statistics/r...

Ironic that the author who made the errors gets another pub in the journal, but the replicators do not.

And whether or not this is misconduct should be irrelevant to the editorial decision to publish the comment.

Unfortunately, such editorial responses are common in top journals, decreasing the incentives to conduct reproductions and writing up comments.

Only 4️⃣ days left to submit your work to the one-and-only 𝐋𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐩!

🗓️ 14-15 August in beautiful Naarm (Melbourne)

📊 Keynotes: Jens Ludwig (UChicago) & John B. Jones (FedRichmond)

💣 Deadline: Thursday 15 Apr, 5pm AEDT (UTC +10)

melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/conferences/...

A 747-400 has 170 *miles* of wiring.

“First, about half the time I reanalyze a study, I find that there are important bugs in the code, or that adding more data makes the mathematical finding go away, or that there’s a compelling alternative explanation for the results.”

davidroodman.com/blog/2025/05...

This makes sense but I'm clearly too far removed---I had never heard of brainrot or skibidi toilet (haven't been teaching for a few years is that why?). I guess I'll need a Gen Z whisperer 😂

I think it is worth knowing that the author of the original paper also published a paper in The Economic Journal making very similar claims, that has been quite systematically debunked.

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

... because as mentioned elsewhere, I'm not familiar with the details.

This is part of my worry: if we make it too easy to get away with shady-looking stuff by pleading ignorance, then we've greatly limited the downside risk of doing shady stuff maliciously. How would you prove intent in a case like this?

Note that I'm not taking a side on intent in this case...

"real chicken"

This sure sounds like yet another case of authors explaining away major inconsistencies as "honest mistakes."

I’m increasingly convinced our research integrity systems are striking the wrong balance between type 1 & type 2 errors

cc @i4replication.bsky.social

I am unfamiliar with both the original paper and your comment, but if the code doesn't match the paper's description, I would think that obviously constitutes some level of research misconduct?