jntowse.bsky.social
Experimental psychologist. Interested in cognitive science, research rigour, and interesting interdisciplinary spaces.
Enjoying the outdoors around the NW of England.
Work: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1183-5508
599 posts
3,144 followers
468 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
“He had us in stitches! 5/5”
comment in response to
post
Indeed and surely that is exactly part of the tutorial discussion? Plus other samples are available …
youtu.be/ULT4ZUmnH7g?...
comment in response to
post
Maybe even better, try this 1st as a tutorial replication demo (much bigger N too) Play 7.5 min of Brian Johnston corpsing vs listening to wind. Present stimuli across an approach /avoid dimension. Discuss paper claims
youtu.be/q4mC3Y4Dw-E?...
comment in response to
post
I would predict that, at say Memory&Cognition or JML that average would be lower
comment in response to
post
This is discussed over a short time window for one journal (only) in this recent editorial
psycnet.apa.org/record/2026-...
comment in response to
post
Nice piece and agreed.
Just to complement and broaden, peer review should also be where 'responsible innovation' is tested, where the context is provided for empirical work. This too is for *peers* to undertake
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
comment in response to
post
Wait until you learn what salary uplift this move involved for him.
We’re quite the warm up act for you
comment in response to
post
It will remain a great place to be student even if - like an enormous swathe of Unis- impoverished by the current sector omnishambles.
comment in response to
post
Can you hear that sucking sound yet again?
That’s the noise made by £30M per year being removed from the local economy in the latest retrenchment …
comment in response to
post
Yup - I expect that the graph is pretty lumpy if broken down by disciplines.
However, it also means that one needn’t be gloomy that ‘it can’t work for research’, rather it’s about what will light the fire in a particular area etc
comment in response to
post
Just putting this post out there:
bsky.app/profile/altm...
comment in response to
post
Agreed. Really not against open review in principle. But we are creating a platform /opportunity for reviewers to grandstand & to promote themselves rather than evaluate the work at hand
The audience is no longer the author /editor, but the world.
Expect a huge increase in self citations in reviews
comment in response to
post
When a chatbot gets something wrong, it’s not because it made an error. It’s because on that roll of the dice, it happened to string together a group of words that, when read by a human, represents something false. But it was working entirely as designed. It was supposed to make a sentence & it did.
comment in response to
post
Please, no ... the first two of these do not provide permanent links and will be susceptible to hyperlink rot (although tbf one can link Github to Zenodo via an API to get a DOI).
Absolutely make the data available where possible - but don't forget to make it FAIR etc
comment in response to
post
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose: doi.org/10.1016/j.cu...
comment in response to
post
I *have* got the link to work multiple times (ie read the statement). However, there was also def something flaky (osf disruption) recently about the link - so maybe get a brew and try again later?
comment in response to
post
"I can't quite fathom what Wiley is doing..." Certainly agree with this... There's plenty of room for speculation based on this (sober & considered) PCI-RR statement, but next to no evidence at this point that Wiley have properly thought this through.
comment in response to
post
Interesting test case for the potential impact of collective action, wherein reviewers (en masse?) decline to provide advice for Wiley Journals.
To be effective, probably helps to have a boilerplate decline response that points to this statement as problematic for reviewers
comment in response to
post
This is just *nuts* from Wiley.
A preprint that has been revised, say following submission & rejection by one journal (ie authors modify and reorient based on reviewer feedback before trying somewhere else) is no longer a preprint?
So only virgin preprints are acceptable to a Wiley journal??
comment in response to
post
Also platforms like psychopy (paging @hirstrj.bsky.social)
www.psychopy.org
And Gorilla
gorilla.sc
As platforms for building studies
comment in response to
post
Agreed BRM is a key venue.
Also Journal of Open Research Software
openresearchsoftware.metajnl.com
And JOSS (though less psychology specific tbf)
joss.theoj.org
comment in response to
post
They just came out and said it:
“We both know why you’ve been detained…it’s because of what you wrote about the protests at Columbia”
comment in response to
post
An unjustified moral panic whipped up in bad faith by someone called Jonathan Haidt in 2016?
Gosh, idk that’s reminding me of something I’ve read about recently, but I just can’t put my finger on it …