We looked inside some of the tweets by @samuelmehr and here's what we found interesting.
Inside 100 Tweets
We've rolled out a bunch of new updates to http://themusiclab.org . Two new games (Test Your Musical IQ & What's Your Musical Style?), faster site, mobile-compatible, and more! Check it out. & bravo to @conBainbridge @_jansimson @statwoodpsych @_themusiclab who made it happen :D
If we throw away imperfect heuristics like impact factor, it won't force people to be more thoughtful. Many will turn to different heuristics instead. What will they be? Retweet count? Download count? There's a good chance that the new heuristics will be much worse. 2/2
💯👏👏👏 the danger of an uncurated science is a Spotify-ed science, where what gets read is just a popularity contest; quirkiness, innovation, and artistry are selected *against*; and the whole space becomes more vanilla, less risky, and far less interesting
Or giving less consideration to Science. We give it its prestige. If it doesn’t earn it, let’s take it back. It’s easy, watch: Search Cmte Member 1: “She has a Science publication” SCM2: “That doesn’t tell me much, can you tell me what impressed you about the paper?” https://twitter.com/Slate/status/1142300189283246080 …
My unpopular view: prestige is net positive. I bet we can name 20 error-riddled, unreliable papers in low tier journals for every 1 in Science. But in Science, people notice them, whereas in low-tier places science is more likely to march on, quietly, without correction.
My group is recruiting a post doc with the @MPI_SHH's department for linguistic & cultural evolution. 1 position on 1 of 2 projects. Project 1: the distinctiveness of graphical symbols. Project 2: the value of cultural diversity. Follow the link!
So many scientific results rely on code written by an inexperienced programmer and is NEVER EVER seen by anyone else. We can surely do better. Thread 1/n https://twitter.com/DanielBolnick/status/1142414216474824704 …
This is why I think code review should be a service provided by major journals.
This is one of my favorite bits of @sapinker writing, comparing bad psychology to a classic Python sketch. Expert theory: "All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end." http://dai.ly/x36cxnp (starts at 5:20)
My own view is this is a damn social media site. If I want to like cat memes and block anyone who's an academic I can do that. People need to settle down. Academics use Twitter for primarily academic ends but most people don't only talk about work on Twitter. More things to life!
leave it to academics to use twitter dot com primarily for (1) talking about work (2) talking about what one should or shouldn't talk about on twitter dot com also gifs, I guess
😢"Our data show that Stapel’s papers are still cited in a favorable way within and without the psychological literature. To ameliorate this problem, we propose that papers should be screened during the review process to monitor citations to retracted papers." https://twitter.com/PsyArXivBot/status/1141330997570625536 …
and just think about all the papers with fatal errors that *aren't* retracted which keep getting cited...... 🙄
It is time we start to have a serious discussion about whether journals like @sciencemagazine are doing more harm than good to science. My money is on more harm. https://twitter.com/bnbakker/status/1140954856280285186 …
I like plenty of open sciencey things but this is plainly over the top. Really? Science is doing more harm than good to science? among their most recent super-highly-cited social science papers is ... [checks notes] ... "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science"