Red Team of Science
@redteamofsci.bsky.social
79 followers 130 following 40 posts
A newsletter dedicated to reforming the practice of science through rigorous debate. Metascience | open science | statistics Subscribe at redteamofscience.com
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
redteamofsci.bsky.social
The Red Team of Science is on book leave. Subscribe for occasional science reform updates, paper reviews, and lesson plans.

Like the site, the book is for professionals in healthcare, investment, journalism, and anyone learning scientific critique. (Taylor & Francis, 2026)
Reposted by Red Team of Science
charlespiller.bsky.social
I’m deeply honored to have been named as the recipient of the Victor Cohn Prize for Excellence in Medical Science Reporting from the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing. It recognizes my work on scientific integrity for Science Magazine over the last five years. 1/7 tinyurl.com/zz54fzyr
Charles Piller wins 2025 Victor Cohn Prize - CASW
tinyurl.com
redteamofsci.bsky.social
How extreme is this limitless advocacy? Enough that this author has gotten away with saying that the "rabbit hole" of Hitler's big lie or Orwellian dystopia is a solution to the paradox they would not "prefer."
redteamofsci.bsky.social
The way to increase trust in science is to stop making rules to benefit scientists.

Making self-serving rules is so universal in science that the author calls transparency a paradox because it doesn't always help your reputation.
reproducibilitea.org
Lying increases trust in science doi.org/10.1007/s111...

“a better way forward (and the real solution to the transparency paradox) would be to resolve the problem of the public overidealizing science through science education and communication to eliminate the naïve view of science as infallible.”
redteamofsci.bsky.social
The replication crisis started in much the same way, with a relatively normal paper. www.redteamofscience.com/p/tylenol-an...
redteamofsci.bsky.social
Tylenol and autism. Why normal papers make history:
redteamofsci.bsky.social
This is a thorough and important paper. No attempts to replicate previous studies were found in a sample of 465 articles in physical therapy.

Many fields have never measured these indicators and it takes a small number of authors to do it.
francois-jabouille.bsky.social
📰 New preprint: Replicability and transparency in physical therapy research: Time to wake up 📰

Where does physical therapy stand on the replication crisis and open-science practices?

We have identified significant shortcomings in current physical therapy research practice
👉 doi.org/10.1101/2025...
redteamofsci.bsky.social
Ivan Oransky of @retractionwatch.com
on delayed scientific reform. "The problem when you don't self-regulate or self-police... when you don't do those things, other people will come in a do them. Probably in a way you don't like." www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQaZ...
Future Proof Your Research With Rigor
YouTube video by Community 4 Rigor
www.youtube.com
Reposted by Red Team of Science
katiecorker.bsky.social
I want this kind of back and forth to be somewhere that everyone can see it and enjoy it, in perpetuity. What if peer review worked more like this, in the open?
redteamofsci.bsky.social
"The question is not whether the factory’s settings are wrong but whether it should be a paper factory in the first place."
www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/o...
Opinion | ‘The Power of Science to Solve Problems Is Almost Limitless’
www.nytimes.com
redteamofsci.bsky.social
The Red Team of Science is on book leave. Subscribe for occasional science reform updates, paper reviews, and lesson plans.

Like the site, the book is for professionals in healthcare, investment, journalism, and anyone learning scientific critique. (Taylor & Francis, 2026)
redteamofsci.bsky.social
It's true metascience needs to prune nonsense or end up irrelevant and unscientific.

An invitation to debate to three non-positivists in metascience got no reply. (The invitation stands, of course.)

www.redteamofscience.com/p/i-believe-...
Reposted by Red Team of Science
alexh.bsky.social
For the first time, the COPE Retraction guidelines now (version 3) address the possibility of mentioning those who found the issue (e.g. data sleuths). But it only mentions it *can* happen; stops short of recommending it!
#metascience
Reposted by Red Team of Science
briannosek.bsky.social
10 years ago?! Holy smokes.
redteamofsci.bsky.social
3. The head of coronavirus research at WIV admitted, "The coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories" and this was published in Science (see link to "full" response). doi.org/10.1126/scie...
Wuhan coronavirus hunter Shi Zhengli speaks out
China's "Bat Woman" denies responsibility for the pandemic, demands apology from Trump.
doi.org
redteamofsci.bsky.social
I'm sorry I missed this!

@padkaer.bsky.social, 1. More minor lab leaks also happen more frequently.
2. You're still using a higher probability event (less serious spillover) to make the case for a lower probability event (pandemic level spillover). That's fine except you then can't ignore #1 above.