Brian Nosek

@briannosek.bsky.social

Co-founder of Project Implicit, Society for Improving Psychological Science, and the Center for Open Science; Professor at the University of Virginia

@cos.ioReposted by @briannosek.bsky.social

⚠️ OSF Planned Downtime OSF will be unavailable from Oct 16 at 9 am EDT through Oct 19 at 9 am EDT for a planned Cloud infrastructure migration. During this time, all services of the OSF platform will be inaccessible via website and API. Please complete any time-sensitive work before the downtime.

@briannosek.bsky.social

"Estimators based on meta-analysis methods that correct for potential bias in the original study were close to unbiased when synthesizing the original study and replication...meta-analytic estimates were substantially closer to the effect size of the replication compared to the original study."

@cos.ioReposted by @briannosek.bsky.social

COS researchers and collaborators have developed and piloted Registered Revisions—an approach designed to reduce uncertainty and publication bias when substantive changes to a study’s analysis are requested during peer review

Noah Haber previews what's in the report:

@reproducibilitea.orgReposted by @briannosek.bsky.social

☕️Shape the future of Open Research: Join the ReproducibiliTea Steering Committee for 2027! We are thrilled to announce that applications are officially open to join the ReproducibiliTea Steering Committee starting in early 2027.

@briannosek.bsky.social

"an implementation guide for..renewed leadership by Research Performing Organizations in realigning research(er) assessment and incentives to reward quality, transparency, and trustworthiness in research, closing persistent gaps, and reinforcing science’s credibility and utility for society."

@improvingpsych.orgReposted by @briannosek.bsky.social

Support open-access research in psychological science – join the PsyArXiv Moderation team!
🧑‍🏫Moderator training is provided
🕰️Commitment: ~2 hours a month
📝Checking submissions for relevance, scope, and appropriate metadata
🌐Moderation work can be done asynchronously
buff.ly/6TlgL7Q

@cos.ioReposted by @briannosek.bsky.social

📢 COS seeks new members for its Preregistration & Outcome Reporting Advisory Group! The group will review community-developed templates & recommend for inclusion; they will also advise COS on how OSF can support outcome reporting. Honorarium: $1,250. Apply by Oct. 30, 2026:

@syeducation.bsky.socialReposted by @briannosek.bsky.social

New paper! Despite qualitative researchers claiming that generalizability is not a goal, their published work does indeed contain generalizable claims. We document this and provide recommendations for how all researchers can better calibrate their generalizability claims. doi.org/10.1177/2515...

article header for, "Qualitative Researchers Can and Do Generalize: Generalizability Claims in Qualitative Psychological Research". Metascience!
@dsquintana.bsky.socialReposted by @briannosek.bsky.social

New preprint! 🎉 I analysed 1660 papers from 4 psychology journals and found materials sharing went from 9% of papers in 2015 to 82% in 2025, and these materials *do* get downloaded — a median of 135 times each. BUT shared code is often hard to run. doi.org/10.31234/osf...

Let's walk through it 🧵

Two-panel figure. Panel a is a flow diagram tracking 1,611 empirical psychology articles from publication year (545 in 2015, 552 in 2020, 514 in 2025) to repository-link type: 785 link an OSF project, 85 link another platform, and 741 link no repository. Of those with an OSF link, download counts were retrieved for 670 and not retrieved for 115. Panel b is a line chart of the share of empirical papers linking OSF across 2015, 2020 and 2025. The overall rate, shown as a dashed black line, rises from 9% to 57% to 82%. All four journals rise steeply and end close together: Psychological Science 92%, JESP 89%, JML 83%, Cognition 76%, with Psychological Science highest throughout.Three-panel figure. Panel a: ridgeline plot of downloads per file by material type on a log scale, with the percentage never downloaded labelled for each — archive 16% of 545 files, documents 20% of 2,970, code 12% of 3,471, other 17% of 1,646, data 21% of 10,051, media 35% of 2,120, images 35% of 4,102. Most files cluster between 1 and 10 downloads, with long right tails past 100. Panel b: ridgeline plot of downloads per paper by journal, log scale, with dashed median lines; Psychological Science is highest, then JESP, JML and Cognition. Panel c: stacked bars showing, for documents, data and code separately, the share of papers by download band (0, 1–10, 11–100, more than 100) in 2015, 2020 and 2025. The share exceeding 100 downloads falls sharply over time in all three types, from roughly two-thirds in 2015 to a quarter or less in 2025, as the 1–10 band grows.Four-panel figure. Panel a: statistical languages detected among 333 papers with retrievable code — R 88%, SPSS 12%, Stata 4%, SAS 1%. Panel b: code red flags among those 333 papers — 34% hard-code an absolute path, 40% reference a missing file — above documentation among 672 OSF-linked papers — 21% have a README, 30% are documented by README, description or wiki. Panel c: among 562 Elsevier papers with no repository link, 44% (245) host at least one journal supplementary file but only 14% (77) host data, code or an archive. Panel d: composition of those 448 hosted files — documents 52%, data 21%, media 9%, other 7%, archive 6%, code 3%, images 1%. The code panels are green, the journal-supplement panels blue.Coefficient plot (download predictors) Dot-and-whisker plot of three standardised predictors of OSF download volume, each with a 95% confidence interval. Repository size (number of files) has the largest effect at about 0.76, citations about 0.38, and altmetric attention about 0.12. All three intervals sit entirely above zero, so each predicts more downloads, with repository size roughly twice the effect of citations and six times that of attention. X-axis: standardised effect, −0.2 to 1.0.
Older posts