Matti Vuorre

@matti.vuorre.com

I am an assistant professor at the department of Social Psychology at Tilburg University's School of Social and Behavioral Sciences.

I have a website at https://vuorre.com.

All posts are posts.

Videos

Psychology 44%

Neuroscience 13%

Posts Replies Media Videos

Pinned

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 25d

I am hiring PhD candidates to study the psychology of attention & technology use at @tilburg-university.bsky.social.

We're looking for motivated & curious scholars with expertise in cognitive psychology and statistics, and offer a friendly work environment with great terms & benefits.

tiu.nu/22989

An aerial photograph of the Tilburg University campus.

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 37m

It's the 🤷 prior

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 4h

Yup the binomial posterior is the easiest example of prior = data. So here b(0.5, 0.5) is the same as observing previously a trial that was both a success and failure.

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 5h

Unknowing users accidentally adding a whole extra trial to the dataset!

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 5h

It's because all others data is 16/1000 but Bayes data is 16.5/1001 😉

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 12h

The most comprehensive dataset of video game play and psychological functioning available with CC0 license at zenodo.org/records/1760...

Tamas Andrei Foldes @sinandrei.bsky.social · 3d

We released a pretty cool dataset/preprint today looking at video game play, cognition, time-use and a ton of self-reported psych measures at osf.io/preprints/ps... with @nballou.bsky.social @matti.vuorre.com @thomashakman.bsky.social @rpsychologist.com and @shuhbillskee.bsky.social RRs coming soon

Survey administration schedule across the
12-week study period. Participants completed biweekly
surveys (orange) every two weeks, with US participants
additionally completing daily surveys (blue) for the first
30 days. Cognitive tests (green) were administered during
biweekly surveys at weeks 1, 5, and 9. Gray circles indicate
days with no scheduled surveys. Retention percentages
show the proportion of baseline participants (N=1978)
who were still active at each measurement week (defined
as having completed either a daily or biweekly survey at
any time after that week)

Diurnal play across Xbox, Nintendo, Steam.

Sample of daily gaming patterns and mental wellbeing for three representative participants. Stacked bars
represent total daily playtime across platforms. Orange line shows biweekly mental wellbeing scores (short WEMWBS)
measured at six study waves. Participants were selected from those closest to the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of total
playtime, prioritizing those with the most varied multi-platform gaming behavior. Participant IDs: p9009984081 (25th
percentile), p8809196928 (50th percentile), p7162729307 (75th percentile)

Reposted by Andrew K Przybylski, Ian Hussey, Paolo Crosetto , and 1 more Andrew K Przybylski, Ian Hussey, Paolo Crosetto, Matti Vuorre

Tamas Andrei Foldes @sinandrei.bsky.social · 3d

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 5d

~40% of psyarxiv preprints contain links to open data in 2025 vs (e.g.) ~10% in 2019 (although in the latter case people mostly did not report this metadata): vuorre.com/psyarxiv-das...

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 5d

vuorre.com/psyarxiv-das... now shows tag co-occurrence networks for psyarxiv preprints. Useful for e.g. looking at what kinds of things people study in relation to social media (left) and technology (right).

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 5d

They are laughing at US!

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 5d

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwMV...

cf. www.scottaaronson.com/writings/jou...

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 5d

Yeah. It seems to me that granting agencies are making positive changes tho (suggesting/requiring preprints, diamond oa, etc.).

Reposted by Magnus Johansson

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 5d

Everyone involved in scientific publishing should take a look at these papers.

>"The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science; we need [...] to re-communalise publishing to serve science not the market."

Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 6d

We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...

A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below.

1. The four-fold drain
1.1 Money
Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for
whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who
created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis,
which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024
alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit
margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher
(Elsevier) always over 37%.
Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most
consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial
difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor &
Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American
researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The
Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3
billion in that year.

A figure detailing the drain on researcher time.

1. The four-fold drain

1.2 Time
The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce,
with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure
1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material
has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs,
grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for
profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time.
The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million
unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of
peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting
widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the
authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many
review demands.
Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of
scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in
‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow
progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to
volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier,
local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with
limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging
with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks
intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision.

A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below:

1. The four-fold drain
1.1 Money
Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for
whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who
created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis,
which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024
alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit
margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher
(Elsevier) always over 37%.
Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most
consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial
difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor &
Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American
researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The
Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3
billion in that year.

The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised
scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers
first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour
resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Reposted by Leonard Reinecke, Johannes Breuer, Matti Vuorre

Alicia Gilbert @aliciagilbert.bsky.social · 6d

📬 Pub alert

Do effects of digital disconnection interventions translate to well-being benefits in *daily life*?

Our new ESM study concludes: yes but no... kinda 👽🔋
@klingelhoefer.bsky.social @adrianmeier.bsky.social

Out now in Communication Research
doi.org/10.1177/0093...

A screenshot of the article title "Disconnect to Recharge: Well-Being Benefits of Digital Disconnection in Daily Life" and the abstract.

Reposted by Dorothy Bishop, Colin F. Camerer, Ben C. Sheldon , and 35 more Dorothy Bishop, Colin F. Camerer, Ben C. Sheldon, Juli G. Pausas, Dan Brockington, David M. Schultz, Sam Harper, Robert Böhm, Brendan Nyhan, Garry Peterson, Ross Woods, Euan G. Ritchie, Alistair Munro, Howard I. Browman, Rebecca Sear, Paul E. Johnson, Benjamin Braun, Ian Hussey, Jonathan Hopkin, Paolo Crosetto, Veli‐Matti Karhulahti, Jean Bonnet, Jacob T. Levy, Margot C. Finn, Étienne Ollion, Matt N Williams, Alberto Corsín Jiménez, Patrick Präg, Urška Demšar, Rense Corten, Juanjo Medina, Julie Novkov, Matti Vuorre, Tom Louwerse, Frédéric Delsuc, José Pina-Sánchez, Catherine M. Hulshof, Alba Anadon‐Rosell

Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 6d

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 7d

covid-19 is the most commonly used tag on psyarxiv: vuorre.com/psyarxiv-das... I'm surprised to see 'consciousness' in the top-20!

Graph of most common tags on psyarxiv
Tag ▾Uses
covid-19 1,529
mental health 1,118
depression 1,099
anxiety 839
emotion 820
meta-analysis 722
personality 699
individual differences 680
attention 659
memory 619
artificial intelligence 589

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 7d

It's not suitable for a direct comparison: I host an updating SQLite mirror of the OSF API preprints endpoint. The content is then cached in user's browser as well.

Apart from that major difference, the idea is to get all info with as few API hits as possible, and to have a minimalist UI.

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 7d

Hehe, yeah that's the point--text is all we need and often UI magic gets in the way.

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 7d

Yeah. Here's a proof of concept of how things could (🙏) be: psyarxiv.vuorre.com

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 7d

Nope: support.zenodo.org/help/en-gb/2...

Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 10d

💯 %, GitHub is just a collaboration convenience we should be ready to abandon at a moment's notice. Connecting to zenodo keeps that and makes archiving automatic.