https://error.reviews/
PIs: @malte.the100.ci & @ruben.the100.ci
Chief Recommender: @ianhussey.mmmdata.io
Recommender: @jamiecummins.bsky.social
A well-deserved recognition for her seminal efforts to improve scientific rigor, which includes instituting detailed checks for errors and computational reproducibility at Psychological Science.
A well-deserved recognition for her seminal efforts to improve scientific rigor, which includes instituting detailed checks for errors and computational reproducibility at Psychological Science.
Sharing data does not inherently increase trust, rather it enables verification which allows for trust calibration.
This example is a win. Serious issues were rapidly detected that would not have been without mandatory data sharing.
Sharing data does not inherently increase trust, rather it enables verification which allows for trust calibration.
This example is a win. Serious issues were rapidly detected that would not have been without mandatory data sharing.
@tomhardwicke.bsky.social
@tomhardwicke.bsky.social
They show that triangulation in science requires multiple robust lines of research.
Read the full opinion piece in @cp-neuron.bsky.social: spkl.io/63322AbxpA
@wiringthebrain.bsky.social, @statsepi.bsky.social, & @deevybee.bsky.social
They show that triangulation in science requires multiple robust lines of research.
Scientists are human. So, sometimes mistakes slip through the cracks. To make science as robust as possible, though, they've created all sorts of methods to seal those cracks.
I explore these in a new @nature.com podcast.
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/07/13/e...
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/07/13/e...
www.frontiersin.org/journals/sus...
www.frontiersin.org/journals/sus...
Huge props to the authors @erichehman.bsky.social et al. for exposing themselves to this detailed post-pub peer review and to Will Lowe @conjugateprior.org for his detailed review and reproduction.
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
Huge props to the authors @erichehman.bsky.social et al. for exposing themselves to this detailed post-pub peer review and to Will Lowe @conjugateprior.org for his detailed review and reproduction.
Few comments on the conclusion and the process in general
1/n
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
Few comments on the conclusion and the process in general
1/n
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
Great to see @error.reviews approaching error detection so sensitively
Few comments on the conclusion and the process in general
1/n
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
Great to see @error.reviews approaching error detection so sensitively
Few comments on the conclusion and the process in general
1/n
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
Few comments on the conclusion and the process in general
1/n
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
Few comments on the conclusion and the process in general
1/n
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
error.reviews/reviews/hehm...
We pay reviewers and authors of impactful published articles to do a deep dive on results, data, code, etc to check for errors.
Our second report of 2025 (and my first acting as Recommender for the review) is out now!
We pay reviewers and authors of impactful published articles to do a deep dive on results, data, code, etc to check for errors.
Our second report of 2025 (and my first acting as Recommender for the review) is out now!
We pay reviewers (and authors!) of impactful published articles to do a deep dive on results, data, code, etc to check for errors.
Our second report is out now!
More information about the program here: error.reviews
We pay reviewers (and authors!) of impactful published articles to do a deep dive on results, data, code, etc to check for errors.
Our second report is out now!
More information about the program here: error.reviews