Sophia Crüwell
LightNews LightNews
cruwelli.bsky.social
Sophia Crüwell
@cruwelli.bsky.social
1.5K followers 640 following 65 posts
Civil service trainee academic librarian in Frankfurt 📚

Previously Philosophy of Science @ Cambridge HPS | Metaresearch | ReproducibiliTea

www.cruwell.com
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
adamcsharp.bsky.social
My top five favourite words to pronounce like they’re Greek philosophers…
 
5. Monocles
4. Bicycles
3. Popsicles
2. Obstacles
1. Testicles
December 18, 2025 at 12:13 PM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
sabrinanorwood.bsky.social
Did you know that from tomorrow, Qualtrics is offering synthetic panels (AI-generated participants)?

Follow me down a rabbit hole I'm calling "doing science is tough and I'm so busy, can't we just make up participants?"
Text reads: About synthetic panels Recruiting the right participants for a study can be difficult. You may not get the exact demographics you need, and the shorter the deadline, the less sure you can be that everyone will answer on time. One possible solution can be to use synthetic panels. Synthetic panels are powered by a first party proprietary AI model developed here at Qualtrics. Our synthetic panel is trained on thousands of responses from a variety of demographic backgrounds in order to more accurately predict how certain populations would respond to a survey. Our synthetic panel is based on the United States General Population, and is only available in English. This panel comes with ready-made quotas and target breakouts in order to represent your chosen population and make it easy to launch your survey right away. Text reads: Question-writing best practices To get the most reliable and actionable results from synthetic audiences, consider these question-writing best practices: Ask forward-looking and attitudinal questions. Synthetic panels perform best with perceptions, preferences, and intent-based questions. For example, “How likely are you to try…?” Synthetic panels are less applicable for studies on past behaviors, detailed recall, brand recall, or awareness questions. For example, “When did you last visit…?” Text reads: Discussion The current study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of the TPB when applied to health behaviours which addressed the limitations of previous reviews by including only prospective tests of behaviour, applying RE meta-analytic procedures, correcting correlations for sampling and measurement error, and hierarchically analysing the effect of behaviour type and sample and methodological moderators. Some 237 tests were identified which examined relations amongst model components. Overall the analysis indicated that the TPB could explain 19.3% of the variance in behaviour and 44.3% of the variance in intention across studies. This level of prediction of behaviour is slightly lower than that of previous meta-analytic reviews which have found between 27% (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Hagger et al., 2002) and 36% (Trafimow et al., 2002) of the variance in behaviour to be explained by intention and PBC.
December 16, 2025 at 5:38 PM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
elisabethbik.bsky.social
Stealth Corrections are corrections that are not marked at all, not traceable, unless you compare an old copy of the paper to the current version.

See this paper by @deadneanderthals.bsky.social et al.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
The Existence of Stealth Corrections in Scientific Literature—A Threat to Scientific Integrity
Click on the article title to read more.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
December 14, 2025 at 9:56 PM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
jacasiegel.bsky.social
Sometimes, I reminisce about academic Twitter the same way I reminisce about theater camp. We were all together in this wonderful and complicated and often messy space for a short time, where we built community and created something wonderful. Then the summer ended, and the magic was gone.
December 9, 2025 at 5:06 AM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
dingdingpeng.the100.ci
I maintain that this is an excellent benchmark for d-type effect sizes:

Sleep satisfaction & duration declined with childbirth & reached a nadir during the first 3 months postpartum, with women more strongly affected (satisfaction d = -0.79, duration minus 62 min, d = -0.90)>
Long-term effects of pregnancy and childbirth on sleep satisfaction and duration of first-time and experienced mothers and fathers
AbstractStudy Objectives. To examine the changes in mothers’ and fathers’ sleep satisfaction and sleep duration across prepregnancy, pregnancy, and the pos
academic.oup.com
December 9, 2025 at 9:50 AM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
rebeccasear.bsky.social
“Farid says that he now counsels students to not go into AI research, because of the “frenzy” in the field and the large volume of low-quality work being put out by people hoping to better their career prospects”

www.theguardian.com/technology/2...
Artificial intelligence research has a slop problem, academics say: ‘It’s a mess’
AI research in question as author claims to have written over 100 papers on AI that one expert calls a ‘disaster’
www.theguardian.com
December 7, 2025 at 9:45 AM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
samuelmoore.org
CNRS cancels Web of Science in order to focus on qualitative evaluation and promoting the development of open databases.

www.cnrs.fr/en/update/cn...
The CNRS is breaking free from the Web of Science
From January 1st 2026, the CNRS will cut access to one of the largest commercial bibliometric databases, Clarivate Analytics'
www.cnrs.fr
December 1, 2025 at 12:31 PM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
kjsanders.bsky.social
A reminder that "[o]ne should not think of OA as a thing-in-itself; rather, it should be seen as a process of understanding, engaging and experimenting with the ways in which research is presented and disseminated." (@samuelmoore.org, 2017)
November 28, 2025 at 10:53 AM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
aufdroeseler.bsky.social
Preregistrations without Code do not Prevent P-Hacking: You can increase your chances for a significant finding in the absence of real effects even with correlations and t test despite having preregistered your hypothesis (e.g., simply changing arguments in the functions).

doi.org/10.31222/osf...
November 25, 2025 at 12:33 PM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
dingdingpeng.the100.ci
I think it's hard to overstate how much Simine has changed research practices and standards in psychology for the better, despite at times massive resistance from powerful parties with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Very well deserved award imho 🥳
tomhardwicke.bsky.social Tom Hardwicke @tomhardwicke.bsky.social · 26d
Congratulations to @simine.com well deserved winner of the Einstein Foundation Individual Award for Promoting Quality in Research 2025 🎉 www.einsteinfoundation.de/en/media/pre...
November 24, 2025 at 11:03 AM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
tomhardwicke.bsky.social
Congratulations to @simine.com well deserved winner of the Einstein Foundation Individual Award for Promoting Quality in Research 2025 🎉 www.einsteinfoundation.de/en/media/pre...
November 24, 2025 at 10:46 AM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
melikhovo.bsky.social
Just saw someone described as an "ontologist" and now I want Clinical Ontologist to be a job title.

Welcome to the Department of Clinical Ontology. Let's go over your chart. I see that you are. Are you still as you were or are you otherwise? For your case of being, I prescribe becoming.
November 21, 2025 at 5:25 PM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
alexh.bsky.social
Lisa Bero's first slide at #AIMOS2025 on the evidence base weakening because of commercial influence on research, e.g. false claims of efficacy #metascience
November 18, 2025 at 11:07 PM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
samuelmoore.org
"That's a problem for me. You see, I wanna make my software freely available to everyone in the world except those guys specifically. That very particular bunch of autocratic corpo-states are actively destroying the world I'm trying to pro-socially enrich as a commoner."
Open Source Power
We have to talk about open source licensing.
blog.muni.town
November 16, 2025 at 7:28 AM
cruwelli.bsky.social
Why did my brain automatically read that quote in @lakens.bsky.social’s voice 😅
cursortue.bsky.social Cursor @cursortue.bsky.social · Nov 13
TU/e has gained a new research centre: META/e. Daniël Lakens and Krist Vaesen were among the founders of this knowledge hub for metascience—research aimed at improving the practice of science itself. “We want to be a home for every researcher who occasionally wonders: what are we even doing?”
Knowledge centre META/e: home for those improving science
TU/e has gained a new research centre: META/e. Daniël Lakens and Krist Vaesen were among the founders of this knowledge hub for metascience—research aimed at improving the practice of science itself. ...
www.cursor.tue.nl
November 13, 2025 at 10:28 PM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk 🎤

If you’ve read this far and still need convincing, please check out our preprint arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820 and this infographic: doi.org/10.5281/zeno...
10/10
The four-fold drain of scientific publishing: Money, Time, Trust, and Control.
November 13, 2025 at 8:17 PM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca
We’re asking research funders & universities to step up because together, they have the leverage - and frankly, the responsibility - to stop the drain and redirect billions currently flowing to commercial publishers 💸 back into community-owned systems that serve science, not profit.
9/n
November 13, 2025 at 8:17 PM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
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 Sophia Crüwell
mikemorrison.bsky.social
Play a little game and choose the right icon for each role in science.

Play our CRediT Roles icon game/survey, and help make scientific authorship clearer and more accessible!
creditsurvey.sciux.org

#OpenScience #ScienceUX
November 12, 2025 at 2:30 PM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
sabinaleonelli.bsky.social
Can metadata curation count as experimental practice? We answer in this new paper on data reanalysis in #plant #spacebiology, a major outcome of #PHIL_OS & Paola Castaño‘s collaboration w NASA’s open data team! #philsci, #data, #experimentation, #modelling, #ISS. OA version: doi.org/10.1016/j.sh...
doi.org
November 12, 2025 at 12:27 PM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
olivia.science
cannot believe on some level I & my colleagues have turned the tide on this, but also it was in some senses inevitable as why not! Humans can do anything; we still have a way to go however of course, but:

banning AI in the classroom should be as uncontroversial as banning calculators in early maths
olivia.science Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · Oct 24
“I already ban the use of generative AI in my own courses, and as a promoter of master’s theses. I explicitly tell my students they won’t learn anything by using it. [...] A general ban is necessary, but nobody dares to say so.”

🙋🏻‍♀️🙋🏻‍♀️🙋🏻‍♀️

apache.be/2025/10/24/b...
Belgian AI scientists resist the use of AI in academia
Several AI scientists have published an open letter calling for a ban on AI use by students.
apache.be
October 24, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
samuelmoore.org
Reminder about next week's online panel.

www.psu.edu/news/univers...
Three global experts discuss ‘Practical Open Access for Everyone’ Oct. 23 online | Penn State University
Penn State University Libraries will host three of the world’s foremost experts on the subject of open access during a public online panel discussion, “We Are Enough: Practical Open Access for Everyon...
www.psu.edu
October 13, 2025 at 3:46 PM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
aufdroeseler.bsky.social
ReplicationResearch.org is now open for submissions!

Submit replications and reproductions from many different fields, as well as conceptual contributions. With diamond OA, open and citable peer review reports, and reproducibility checks, we push the boundaries of open and fair publishing.
October 10, 2025 at 6:12 AM
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
olivia.science
really nice piece on this btw from @sonjadrimmer.bsky.social sonjadrimmer.com/blog-1/2025/...
"The Printing Press Democratized Knowledge": When Slogans Masquerade as History — Sonja Drimmer
The phrase is said so frequently it seems, like the mechanism it celebrates, to mechanically replicate itself.  It's become a favorite catchphrase among tech boosters of any sort (see my post on...
sonjadrimmer.com
October 10, 2025 at 1:19 PM