Ian Hussey
LightNews LightNews
banner
ianhussey.mmmdata.io
Ian Hussey
@ianhussey.mmmdata.io
3.1K followers 840 following 700 posts
Meta-scientist and psychologist. Senior lecturer @unibe.ch‬. Chief recommender @error.reviews. "Jumped up punk who hasn't earned his stripes." All views a product of my learning history.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
ianhussey.mmmdata.io
Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · Jul 22
Lego Science is research driven by modular convenience.

When researchers combine methods or concepts, more out of convenience than any deep curiosity in the resulting research question, to create publishable units.

"What role does {my favourite construct} play in {task}?"
Reposted by Ian Hussey
donmoyn.bsky.social
Three German universities offering post-docs for researchers "who cannot conduct or continue their work in the USA appropriately because of actual political pressure. "
www.uni-konstanz.de/zukunftskoll...
Early Career Rescue Fellowship
www.uni-konstanz.de
November 11, 2025 at 7:10 PM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
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 Ian Hussey
deevybee.bsky.social
I appreciate @bmj.com follows a formal process, but just how much evidence do they need before adding an Expression of Concern.
Numerous PubPeer comments for stem cell for heart disease paper - which had huge media attention hailing it as a medical breakthrough.
pubpeer.com/publications...
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 9, 2025 at 10:42 AM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
longtail.news
Feed: "Retraction Watch"
By: Avery Orrall on Friday, November 7, 2025
Journal retracts ‘bizarre’ placebo effect paper
An Elsevier journal has retracted a study on the placebo effect coauthored by a researcher known for extreme claims that have failed to withstand scrutiny. The move comes after critics said the res…
retractionwatch.com
November 8, 2025 at 11:02 PM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
sophieehill.bsky.social
Call me old-fashioned, but I think if you have to correct one of the key results cited in your *abstract*, then the correction actually does affect the overall conclusions of your study!
Original version of abstract, with problematic estimate highlighted Corrected version of estimate with problematic estimate omitted In the Research Article “Association Between Consumption of Low- and No-Calorie Artificial Sweeteners and Cognitive Decline: An 8-Year Prospective Study” by Gomes Gonçalves et al.,1 there were errors in the CIs for some estimates presented in the article and the supplementary eTables. The article and its accompanying supplementary material have been replaced by corrected versions. The original version with the changes highlighted is available online alongside the corrected article. The corrections do not affect the overall conclusions of the study. The authors regret the errors.
November 6, 2025 at 11:21 PM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
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 Ian Hussey
publicationethics.bsky.social
How can institutions and journals better align in addressing research misconduct?

Join us for a discussion on preventing and managing misconduct investigations.

#PublicationIntegrityWeek
Register 👉 https://ow.ly/pPX550XfueV

#ResearchIntegrity #AcademicEthics
Background is a city landscape with an owl flying overhead. At the top is the logo for Publication Integrity Week, and text "Register today". Under the day -Thursday 20 November- and theme of the day title "Upholding publication integrity: the role of universities and research institutes" the title of this session "Addressing misconduct and upholding integrity at universities and research institutes" and the photos of the speakers Sonia Vasconcelos, Seeiso Koali, Susan Garfinkel and moderator Tim Kersjes.
November 6, 2025 at 8:05 AM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
sabrinanorwood.bsky.social
and other lies I tell myself
November 6, 2025 at 11:12 AM
ianhussey.mmmdata.io
I successfully defended my Habilitation today, and was honoured by the committee’s positive feedback. I am very grateful for my colleagues, collaborators and students at the University of Bern who made this a very rewarding journey.
November 3, 2025 at 9:54 PM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
psych.peercommunityin.org
Want to support PCI Psychology? You can register for an account to make it easier for recommenders to find you and invite you as a reviewer! Register here psych.peercommunityin.org/default/user... and carefully fill out the "Areas of Expertise" box. #PsychSciSky #SciPub
PCI Psychology
Peer Community in Psychology
psych.peercommunityin.org
October 31, 2025 at 11:08 AM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
jamiecummins.bsky.social
My master thesis file name on my old university's thesis archive site still makes me chuckle.
October 30, 2025 at 12:21 PM
ianhussey.mmmdata.io
ICE and CBP Agents Are Scanning Peoples’ Faces on the Street To Verify Citizenship
Videos on social media show officers from ICE and CBP using facial recognition technology on people in the field. One expert described the practice as “pure dystopian creep.”
www.404media.co
October 29, 2025 at 5:08 PM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
dingdingpeng.the100.ci
This is an excellent point that generalizes.
Researchers often defend suboptimal practices by referring to future studies with better designs.

But: Why would anybody run those studies when you can just throw a bunch of variables into a regression and make sweeping "preliminary" claims?
Defences of factors associated with studies Results are exploratory or hypothesis generating Researchers might accept that limitations exist in a “factors associated with” analysis, but argue that the results give a useful initial indication of potential risk factors. Researchers might say that the results are hypothesis generating and can inform confirmatory studies with a more focused study design. But how often has an important hypothesis been generated for the first time from a “factors associated with” study, and then confirmed to be true? We have yet to identify an example. If readers can identify examples, which we would like to hear about, we wonder if these justify the waste from the large number of “factors associated with studies that are done each year.
October 28, 2025 at 11:22 AM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
jamesheathers.bsky.social
They were already suspended, now they're delisted.

Cureus has had an outsized impact on the sheer volume of nonsense research for years, and I wonder if WoS felt like they had a choice.

I won't miss it.

retractionwatch.com/2025/10/27/e...
Embattled journal Cureus delisted from Web of Science, loses impact factor
Clarivate has removed the mega-journal Cureus from its Master Journal List, according to the October update, released today.  The move means Cureus will no longer be indexed in Web of Science …
retractionwatch.com
October 27, 2025 at 9:29 PM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
sabrinanorwood.bsky.social
Me to the OSF website when it stops responding
Text reads: “don’t make me hate you. Loving you is painful enough.”
October 27, 2025 at 1:36 PM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
malte.the100.ci
Simply delicious
October 24, 2025 at 9:56 AM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
malte.the100.ci
First draft for the intro to this series
October 20, 2025 at 12:35 PM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
shuhbillskee.bsky.social
media effects research (2017-present)
ianhussey.mmmdata.io Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 22d
New hobby:

Remaking article abstracts as movie trailers to expose hype and fearmongering.
October 20, 2025 at 12:28 PM
ianhussey.mmmdata.io
New hobby:

Remaking article abstracts as movie trailers to expose hype and fearmongering.
October 20, 2025 at 10:22 AM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
jdwilko.bsky.social
www.chemistryworld.com/webinars/res...
Restoring integrity: tackling fraud and data manipulation in scientific research
Join us on 27 November to learn how you can fight back against fraudulent research and paper mills
www.chemistryworld.com
October 16, 2025 at 1:58 PM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
malte.the100.ci
Psychologists running empirical studies to rediscover engineering design choices is such a strange genre of papers. By all means, run studies on LLM judgments -- but what else than lexical co-occurence and statistical priors would they be based on??
rebeccasear.bsky.social Rebecca Sear @rebeccasear.bsky.social · 25d
Evidence that even when LLMs produce similar results to humans, they “rely on lexical associations and statistical priors rather than contextual reasoning or normative criteria. We term this divergence epistemia: the illusion of knowledge emerging when surface plausibility replaces verification”
PNAS
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - an authoritative source of high-impact, original research that broadly spans...
www.pnas.org
October 17, 2025 at 10:59 AM
ianhussey.mmmdata.io
October 16, 2025 at 12:33 PM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
jamiecummins.bsky.social
These results are also worth reiterating the title of @ianhussey.mmmdata.io's recent blog post: if researchers find Cohen's d = 8, no they didn't

mmmdata.io/posts/2025/0...
October 15, 2025 at 1:27 PM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
dingdingpeng.the100.ci
Major win for our field: finally a large, replicable effect.
ianhussey.mmmdata.io Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 28d
Results of the replication are in!

Chocolate is more desirable than poop:

Cohen's d_rm = 6.20, 95%CI [5.63, 6.78]

N = 486, two single item 1-7 Likert scales of desirability.

w/
@jamiecummins.bsky.social
ianhussey.mmmdata.io Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 29d
Make an effect size prediction!

@jamiecummins.bsky.social and I are replicating Balcetis & Dunning's (2010) "chocolate is more desirable than poop" (Cohen's d = 4.52)

Let us known in the replies what effect size you think we'll find. Details of the study in the thread below.
October 15, 2025 at 11:29 AM
Reposted by Ian Hussey
mattansb.msbstats.info
The replication crisis is over
ianhussey.mmmdata.io Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 28d
Results of the replication are in!

Chocolate is more desirable than poop:

Cohen's d_rm = 6.20, 95%CI [5.63, 6.78]

N = 486, two single item 1-7 Likert scales of desirability.

w/
@jamiecummins.bsky.social
ianhussey.mmmdata.io Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 29d
Make an effect size prediction!

@jamiecummins.bsky.social and I are replicating Balcetis & Dunning's (2010) "chocolate is more desirable than poop" (Cohen's d = 4.52)

Let us known in the replies what effect size you think we'll find. Details of the study in the thread below.
October 15, 2025 at 11:28 AM