Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
LightNews LightNews
banner
asandovall.bsky.social
Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
@asandovall.bsky.social
210 followers 370 following 8 posts
Postdoctoral fellow at METRICS @stanford.edu
Interested in everything related to meta-research and evidence synthesis
https://sandovallentisco.github.io/
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
dsquintana.bsky.social
There is no reason why systematic reviews can't be open. The data used for synthesis is *already* open and there are many excellent open source tools that can facilitate the easy sharing of analysis scripts.

Here's a nice guide for performing open systematic reviews doi.org/10.1525/coll...
This paper provides guidance and tools for conducting open and reproducible systematic reviews in psychology. It emphasizes the importance of systematic reviews for evidence-based decision-making and the growing adoption of open science practices. Open science enhances transparency, reproducibility, and minimizes bias in systematic reviews by sharing data, materials, and code. It also fosters collaborations and enables involvement of non-academic stakeholders. The paper is designed for beginners, offering accessible guidance to navigate the many standards and resources that may not obviously align with specific areas of psychology. It covers systematic review conduct standards, pre-registration, registered reports, reporting standards, and open data, materials and code. The paper is concluded with a glimpse of recent innovations like Community Augmented Meta-Analysis and independent reproducibility checks.
November 24, 2025 at 12:10 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
ucbitss.bsky.social
🗓️ Save the date: The next BITSS Annual Meeting is April 16, 2026! The conference will gather experts to discuss changes in academic publishing, AI, and current challenges to research transparency.

@cega-uc.bsky.social @tedmiguel.bsky.social
November 21, 2025 at 6:24 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
oscarlecuona.bsky.social
Just released my short course on Bayesian Data Analysis using JASP. Hope you find it useful!

📚Materials, scripts, data and links: doi.org/10.17605/OSF...

📺 Playlist: www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...

#StatsEd #Bayes #OpenScience #Statistics #Teaching
@rosenetwork.bsky.social
Bayesian Data Analysis with JASP: Course for the EAM - YouTube
Short course to cover Bayesian Data Analysis. Starts at the foundations of probability and statistical inference, how Bayesian inference is built and how it ...
www.youtube.com
November 21, 2025 at 3:23 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
reproducibiliteaum.bsky.social
Hola! El próximo lunes 24 de noviembre a las 16h tenemos una nueva reunión🥳. Discutiremos acerca del sistema de publicaciones con el artículo de Hanson et al. (2024) - The strain on scientific publishing (doi.org/10.1162/qss_...). Nos vemos!
The strain on scientific publishing
Abstract. Scientists are increasingly overwhelmed by the volume of articles being published. The total number of articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science has grown exponentially in recent years; ...
doi.org
November 20, 2025 at 12:06 AM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
mariomalicki.bsky.social
@METRICStanford is accepting applications for 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔-𝟐𝟕 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐚-𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡: metrics.stanford.edu/postdoctoral.... The deadline for applications is February 15, 2026, the position is expected to start at October 1, 2026.
November 19, 2025 at 5:49 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
mariomalicki.bsky.social
Tomorrow 9am PT time: 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡? by Niklas Bobrovitz and Stephana Moss, cover 38 metrics of reproducibility and 180 prevalence estimates. Registration at: stanford.zoom.us/meeting/regi...
November 17, 2025 at 6:58 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
dsquintana.bsky.social
Our paper on improving statistical reporting in psychology is now online 🎉

As a part of this paper, we also created the Transparent Statistical Reporting in Psychology checklist, which researchers can use to improve their statistical reporting practices

www.nature.com/articles/s44...
Transparent and comprehensive statistical reporting is critical for ensuring the credibility, reproducibility, and interpretability of psychological research. This paper offers a structured set of guidelines for reporting statistical analyses in quantitative psychology, emphasizing clarity at both the planning and results stages. Drawing on established recommendations and emerging best practices, we outline key decisions related to hypothesis formulation, sample size justification, preregistration, outlier and missing data handling, statistical model specification, and the interpretation of inferential outcomes. We address considerations across frequentist and Bayesian frameworks and fixed as well as sequential research designs, including guidance on effect size reporting, equivalence testing, and the appropriate treatment of null results. To facilitate implementation of these recommendations, we provide the Transparent Statistical Reporting in Psychology (TSRP) Checklist that researchers can use to systematically evaluate and improve their statistical reporting practices (https://osf.io/t2zpq/). In addition, we provide a curated list of freely available tools, packages, and functions that researchers can use to implement transparent reporting practices in their own analyses to bridge the gap between theory and practice. To illustrate the practical application of these principles, we provide a side-by-side comparison of insufficient versus best-practice reporting using a hypothetical cognitive psychology study. By adopting transparent reporting standards, researchers can improve the robustness of individual studies and facilitate cumulative scientific progress through more reliable meta-analyses and research syntheses.
November 14, 2025 at 8:43 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
drg.bsky.social
So @jamesheathers.bsky.social & I answer the burning question: does Cake cause Herpes? No, but one can torture the data to give that impression, and that's a problem. Promiscuous dichotomisation in biomedical science hugely increases spurious findings, best avoided
link.springer.com/article/10.1...
November 13, 2025 at 12:42 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
"Belief in the law of small numbers" as a way to understand the continuing appeal of junk science
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/11/12/b...
“Belief in the law of small numbers” as a way to understand the continuing appeal of junk science | Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu
November 12, 2025 at 2:43 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
paolocrosetto.bsky.social
What is the most profitable industry in the world, this side of the law? Not oil, not IT, not pharma.

It's *scientific publishing*.

We call this the Drain of Scientific Publishing.

Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Background: doi.org/10.1162/qss_...

Thread @markhanson.fediscience.org.ap.brid.gy 👇
November 12, 2025 at 10:31 AM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
hansonmark.bsky.social
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.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
lucyces.bsky.social
Poniendo los puntos sobre las íes 👏

Beigel, F., Brockington, D., Crosetto, P., Derrick, G., Fyfe, A., Barreiro, P. G., Hanson, M. A., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Noe, C., Pinfield, S., & Wilsdon, J. (2025). The Drain of Scientific Publishing (No. arXiv:2511.04820). arXiv. doi.org/10.48550/arX...
The Drain of Scientific Publishing
The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science. We need the most powerful members of the research community, funders, governments and ...
doi.org
November 10, 2025 at 5:19 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
jdwilko.bsky.social
Have increased capacity for this December INSPECT-SR online training workshop following a successful 1st event today. Book here: www.trybooking.com/uk/FKHV
Introduction to INSPECT-SR Training Workshop December
An introductory 2-hour online workshop will introduce participants to the INSPECT-SR tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled...
www.trybooking.com
November 6, 2025 at 5:55 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
gidmk.bsky.social
A study I wrote to the journal about in May this year was just retracted: www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

The review paper claimed that the majority of benefits in clinical trials could be explained by placebo effects.
November 6, 2025 at 12:19 AM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
peercommunityin.bsky.social
📣 Save the date for the 13th PCI webinar on December 1st, 2025, at 4 PM CET!! Simine Vazire (University of Melbourne, Australia) will present "Recognizing and responding to a replication crisis: Lessons from Psychology". For more details and registration, visit: buff.ly/wZNoD2v
PCI Webinar Series - Peer Community In
The PCI webinar series is a series of seminars on research practices, publication practices, evaluation, scientific integrity, meta-research, organised by Peer Community In
peercommunityin.org
November 5, 2025 at 10:49 AM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
sophieehill.bsky.social
Fun fact: it has been 56 days since I notified the editors of Neurology about glaring statistical errors in this peer-reviewed study on sweeteners and cognitive health.

No expression of concern, no correction, no retraction.
November 2, 2025 at 4:06 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
deevybee.bsky.social
@bmj.com Please look at PubPeer comments on an article you published last week. pubpeer.com/publications...
I think your research integrity dept shld act swiftly on this one, given clinical significance.
I'm aware of even more evidence of problems so let me know if this is not sufficient.
PubPeer - Prevention of acute myocardial infarction induced heart fail...
There are comments on PubPeer for publication: Prevention of acute myocardial infarction induced heart failure by intracoronary infusion of mesenchymal stem cells: phase 3 randomised clinical trial (P...
pubpeer.com
November 2, 2025 at 3:02 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
debruine.bsky.social
The package formerly known as papercheck has changed its name to metacheck! We're checking more than just papers, with functions to assess OSF projects, github repos, and AsPredicted pre-registrations, with more being developed all the time.

scienceverse.github.io/metacheck/
Check Research Outputs for Best Practices
A modular, extendable system for automatically checking research outputs for best practices using text search, R code, and/or (optional) LLM queries.
scienceverse.github.io
November 3, 2025 at 4:20 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
psyarxivbot.bsky.social
Fatal flaws in "The relationship between personality traits and marital satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis": https://osf.io/t8kzm
November 1, 2025 at 2:12 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
mariomalicki.bsky.social
Join us on November 18 - 9 am PT | 12 pm ET | 6 pm CET, for 8th Reproducibility Rounds: 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡?. Registration at: stanford.zoom.us/meeting/regi...
October 31, 2025 at 10:56 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
pkp.sfu.ca
PKP released the Publication Facts Label for OJS 3.3–3.5, a transparency tool to strengthen journal integrity and reader trust.

Built as a plugin, it helps journals demonstrate their quality and accountability.

Learn more: pkp.sfu.ca/2025/10/31/p...
#OpenAccess #OJS #MediaLiteracy #ScholarlyComms
This label will put your journal's research integrity in black and white - Public Knowledge Project
The Publication Facts Label is now freely available for the 34,000 journals using OJS (V. 3.3 – 3.5)
pkp.sfu.ca
October 31, 2025 at 11:36 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
reproducibilitea.org
Video recordings of our webinars “Peer Review and its Diversification” are now available on YouTube: www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...

We would like to thank our speakers:
Annie Whamond @anniewham.bsky.social
Rachel Heyard
Marcus Munafò
Richard J. Acton
Mario Malički @mariomalicki.bsky.social
Peer Review and its Diversification Webinars - YouTube
On the 15th and 16th of October 2025, the ReproducibiliTea Steering Committee organised two webinars featuring a diverse group of speakers.
www.youtube.com
October 27, 2025 at 11:09 AM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
erictopol.bsky.social
Why fundamental research is fundamental to progress, seeding major breakthroughs
Editorial @nature.com this week
And 7 basic science discoveries that changed the world
nature.com/articles/d41...
nature.com/articles/d41...
October 29, 2025 at 12:58 PM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
lmu-osc.bsky.social
Struggling to keep your research data organized and reusable? 📂 The LMU Open Science Center has a tutorial to help bring order and accessibility to your datasets.
Self-Paced Tutorial of the Day: FAIR Data Management 📚 lmu-osc.github.io/FAIR-Data-Ma...
Welcome – FAIR Research Data Management Tutorial
lmu-osc.github.io
October 28, 2025 at 11:00 AM
Reposted by Alejandro Sandoval-Lentisco
russpoldrack.org
Ten Simple Rules for AI-Assisted Coding in Science arxiv.org/abs/2510.22254 - our latest, led by @ericwbridgeford.bsky.social
Ten Simple Rules for AI-Assisted Coding in Science
While AI coding tools have demonstrated potential to accelerate software development, their use in scientific computing raises critical questions about code quality and scientific validity. In this pa...
arxiv.org
October 28, 2025 at 1:12 PM