Marlene Altenmüller

@marlephie.bsky.social

Jun. Prof. for Science Reception @ Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID). PI of #SciReLab. Social Psychologist & Art Historian. Formerly @ LMU Munich. Studying #TrustInScience, #SciComm, #MetaScience, #ArtReception & More.

@dsquintana.bsky.socialReposted by @marlephie.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.
@abitter.bsky.socialReposted by @marlephie.bsky.social

Using a natural experiment with bibliographic data from OpenAlex.org, I compared two Educational Psychology journals and their articles' reference lists:

After introducing reference limits, the share of cited Asian/Black/Hispanic authors decreased, as argued by Lawson et al. (2025)

Photo, no description
@abitter.bsky.socialReposted by @marlephie.bsky.social

Reference limits can exacerbate biased citation behavior!

In my current commentary article on the work of @kaileylawson.bsky.social, @brettmurpsych.bsky.social, et al. (2025), I provide empirical support for this thesis.

Now published #OA @collabrapsychology.bsky.social
👉 doi.org/10.1525/coll...

Photo, no description
@marlephie.bsky.social

Finally, at #DGPs2026, our very competent intern Amelie Kröger presents bibliometric analyses (with @abitter.bsky.social) showing that #SciComm research has become increasingly dynamic and responsive to societal challenges over the years. Psychology‘s role in this field is growing. 📣 #SciReLab

Amelie Kröger presents her poster „Hot Topics in Science Communication Research and Psychology‘s Contribution“
@i4replication.bsky.socialReposted by @marlephie.bsky.social

1/ What is the prevalence of personally identifiable information (PII) in author-collected data publicly shared in the social sciences? We audited 327 replication packages from 11 leading journals in economics, political science, and psychology Answer: surprisingly high 🧵

Photo, no description
@marlephie.bsky.social

We are lucky to have gained some super interesting speakers from #SciComm research and practice: @hendriks.bsky.social, @corneliabetsch.bsky.social, @sophieelschner.bsky.social, @lauramkoenig.bsky.social - and, of course, YOU! The fishbowl format invites you to share and join the panel.

@marlephie.bsky.social

Already planning your last day of #DGPs2026? Join our discussion about #SciComm in Psychology! Together with In-Mind Magazin, represented by moderator @olivergenschow.bsky.social, our interest group @psycomm.bsky.social has put together a really promising fishbowl panel!

German panel „Herausforderung oder Chance: Wissenschaftskommunikation als Aufgabe von Wissenschaftler:innen“ on Thursday (Sept 10, 2026) at 10:15 in room „Workshop +1“.
@marlephie.bsky.social

Currently at #DGPs2026? Come by and check out the work by my amazing student researcher Annkathrin Maier from our #SciReLab, showing that including (in)direct (vs. no) quotes in #SciComm does exactly nothing to researchers’ trustworthiness, their evidence credibility, and public engagement. 🤷🏼‍♀️💡

Annkathrin presents her poster „What‘s in a quote? Effects of personalization in science communication“
@abitter.bsky.socialReposted by @marlephie.bsky.social

When you apply for an academic position in psych, which criteria should be used to evaluate your work?

Make your voice count in our brief survey (6-7min)!
👉https://tinyurl.com/zpid-indicators

When you're at #DGPs2026 this week, you can get a free @zpid.bsky.social mug!

#ResearchAssessment #CoARA

Photo, no description
@abitter.bsky.socialReposted by @marlephie.bsky.social

Gave my best to step in for @marlephie.bsky.social and moderate her #PsychologyOfScience session at #DGPs2026. Very cool talks showcasing psychological perspectives on science by @kduermeier.bsky.social, @moritzingendahl.bsky.social, @fbrotzeller.bsky.social and @justinsulik.bsky.social !

Photo, no description
@marlephie.bsky.social

And, finally, @justinsulik.bsky.social will bring these different parts of “doing science” together by discussing the role of diversity across various kinds of problem-solving in science. 🧩

@marlephie.bsky.social

Once the research is conducted, it needs to be communicated. @hendriks.bsky.social shares her and @julianfick.bsky.social‘s work on researchers’ motivations for communicating their science to the public. How can we improve engagement (and research) on #scicomm? 📣

@marlephie.bsky.social

In the next talk, @abitter.bsky.social will turn to writing and citing: he present insights suggesting journal policies (e.g. limits to references) might exacerbate biases in who and how we cite each other. 📝

@marlephie.bsky.social

Then, @fbrotzeller.bsky.social will spontaneously cover for me (thaaaank you 🤗) and present our shared project on responses to data that has been changed (i.e., data fraud) and its detection. Should we rely on motivated whistleblowers or do we need more systemic responses to fraud?

@marlephie.bsky.social

Next, @moritzingendahl.bsky.social will turn towards data collection and analysis. He shows how data-peeking can bias researchers’ minds even if the actual data does not change. 👀

Older posts