Ingo Rohlfing
banner
ingorohlfing.bsky.social
Ingo Rohlfing
@ingorohlfing.bsky.social

I am here for all interesting and funny posts on the social sciences, broadly understood and including open science and meta science, academia, teaching and research. https://linktr.ee/ingorohlfing

Political science 30%
Sociology 17%

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Dann habe ich eine Ahnung, was das Bundesland angeht. Es sei denn, alle haben mittlerweile Scientologyfragebögen. So oder so, mein Glückwunsch und gut, dass eine deutsche Uni dich gewinnen konnte.

Wo geht es hin?

I forgot about this or missed it when reading the text. Technically, this seems correct, but besides everything else, the equal weighting of models is not plausible. Did anyone ever do this? I better not check.

This is a very useful, non-technical discussion of the multiverse analysis. Personally, I like the "Don't take it too seriously" attitude, though it is probably unsatisfying for someone who thinks about using it and wants a more definitive answers (sometimes, this is not what one gets)
New preprint! So, what's a multiverse analysis good for anyway?>

With @jessicahullman.bsky.social and @statmodeling.bsky.social

juliarohrer.com/wp-content/u...
Welcome to #OpenScience Land
expedition-open-science.org This is a lightweight, but very useful and accessible intro to key elements of Open Science (online and as a PDF). Seems particularly useful for introducing the topic to undergraduates @zbw-leibniz.bsky.social
Here’s What the Latest Epstein Files Say About His Ties to Higher Ed: Collectively, the files underscore how deeply Epstein remained embedded in academic and intellectual circles even after his criminal history became public. www.chronicle.com/article/here...
Here’s What the Latest Epstein Files Say About His Ties to Higher Ed
New documents released by the Department of Justice on Friday reinforce that long after his criminal convictions, many prominent professors continued to communicate with him.
www.chronicle.com
I wrote a blog for the Meta-Research Center expressing my infinite frustration about not getting data. What else is new, you might think? Well, I added an extra layer of annoyance directed at the journals who do NOTHING to enforce promised data sharing.

metaresearch.nl/blog/2026/2/...
Promised Data Unavailable? – I’m Sorry, Ma’am, There’s Nothing We Can Do — Meta-Research Center
This blogpost has been written by Michèle Nuijten. Michèle is an assistant professor of our research group who investigates reproducibility and replicability in psychology. Also, she is the developer ...
metaresearch.nl
Don't you f**king dare.
🧵 New version of our paper (@bcegerod.bsky.social) is finally online: "How Many is Enough? Sample Size in Staggered Difference-in-Differences Designs"
We show that even well-identified DiD studies are often underpowered; sample sizes needed are surprisingly large
Paper: osf.io/preprints/os... 1/6

Nine More Higher Ed Names in the Epstein Files
www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty...

It is good more attention is paid to power.
In what way do we get to our senses? That more studies estimate power, or acknowledge that power is likely to be low?

Good point, this is plausible to me.

I think this is unlikely to happen, but who knows. Let's see how this plays out at Small Business Economics and how the first registered report will look like. 2/

Sorry, I was fully focused on the prereg part, not the reports part. Right, results-blind review would likely still work. Theoretically, if you were submitting your code with the registered report and the original data were sitting in some repo, a reviewer could quickly do the analysis. 1/

Not to downplay the value of the format, which is great, but these kind of studies do not open much opportunity for replications because new data would be hard to collect or it may not be possible when the original study already worked with all population-level data 3/

the data little insightful. It does not mean the data do not exist at the time of prereg, but there should be some credibility of the inaccessibility part.
Maybe the editors have a different view because, according to the online-first articles, most seem to work with survey, firm or country data 2/

I don't know, we should ask the editors what they mean to be sure. "and/or in a different context" does not read like new data to me when they refer to new data before that.
I am fine with anyone having a different read of and view on this. Personally, I find prereg with ex ante accessibility of 1/

Vielleicht kann zur Abwechslung mal jemand Niesen?

Thanks for the thread. From the top of my hand, it is not obvious why prereg null results should be more likely to get published. If there is a culture of positive results, prereg vs. not should do little to overturn it because transparency/credibility of the study is not relevant to peer reviewers.

I reproduced what the editorial says because they distinguish subtypes of replications that do not all seem to involve new data, but I may misread it. My understanding of what a replication is different from the editorial's and identical to yours, but I put this aside in the original post
New sci-hub just dropped.
The FORRT Replication Database has received a massive overhaul (FReD 2.0): We double-coded and validated all data from scratch and extended it in the course of a one-year-partnership with the @cos.io. We just switched to a faster interface thanks to @lukaswallrich.bsky.social’s wizardry.
@scientificdiscovery.dev Hi, I am creating a new version of my free online MOOC, and would like to use this picture, of which you have the copyright. Is it ok if I put it in a slide?

“Replications as Registered Reports” at Small Business Economics
link.springer.com/journal/1118...
Laudable goal, but open science and meta science may collide here. When code & data of original study are available, all replications (however defined) that do not rely on new data cannot be prereg'd

Based on your experience, you have serious concerns about this person's integrity and the integrity of the review process if this person was involved.
"[Epstein] was arrested in 2006 & pleaded guilty in 2008"

"Ariely & Epstein met at least 7 times from 2010-2016"

"Ariely is named 636 times in the more than 3 million additional files released"

"Neither Ariely nor Duke responded to ... requests for comment"

www.dukechronicle.com/article/duke...
Duke professor Dan Ariely had longstanding friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, newly released files show
Ariely is named in 636 of the some 3 million newly released files. He was a prominent professor at Duke over the course of his correspondence with Epstein.
www.dukechronicle.com

Oh, das hätte ich wieder vergessen. Ich nun auch. 🙏

Reposted by Ingo Rohlfing

Every time more Epstein files are released, I wonder who the "Epstein" is today because all of these billionaires and elite assholes can't have stopped abusing girls just because one guy died. Someone must have walked right in and filled that gap.