Liz Tenney
@liztenney.bsky.social
Reposted by Liz Tenney
Prediction: Social psychologists will still insist that the book's thesis is valid, thereby ironically validating its thesis
Ok, just wow. If the content of this article is right, this is depressing. We're slowly reaching the point where ~100% of what I was taught in Social Psych was either innocently wrong or plainly frauded
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...
Debunking “When Prophecy Fails”
In 1954, Dorothy Martin predicted an apocalyptic flood and promised her followers rescue by flying saucers. When neither arrived, she recanted, her group dissolved, and efforts to proselytize ceased....
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
November 6, 2025 at 4:17 AM
Prediction: Social psychologists will still insist that the book's thesis is valid, thereby ironically validating its thesis
Reposted by Liz Tenney
Did you just injure your knee? Here is your comprehensive, empirically-supported, insurance-covered, twice-weekly PT to make sure you fully recover your ability to ski.
Did you just have a 9-pound baby cut out of your midsection? Here is your baby.
Did you just have a 9-pound baby cut out of your midsection? Here is your baby.
October 21, 2025 at 6:41 PM
Did you just injure your knee? Here is your comprehensive, empirically-supported, insurance-covered, twice-weekly PT to make sure you fully recover your ability to ski.
Did you just have a 9-pound baby cut out of your midsection? Here is your baby.
Did you just have a 9-pound baby cut out of your midsection? Here is your baby.
Interesting! I can’t get past the EIC of Nature coming out to Final Countdown. The playlist does get better from there.
New post! "A Tale of Two Science Reform Movements," in which I compare the recent #Metascience2025 and #SIPS2025 conferences, and find that I am much more at home at one than the other. getsyeducated.substack.com/p/a-tale-of-...
A Tale of Two Science Reform Movements
Reflections from meetings of Metascience 2025 and the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science
getsyeducated.substack.com
July 5, 2025 at 4:25 PM
Interesting! I can’t get past the EIC of Nature coming out to Final Countdown. The playlist does get better from there.
“I’m not complaining, and I don’t expect you to feel sorry for me. I chose to be shaken in this bag of rats. At any point, we could all have done nothing.” and other amazing metaphors in this worthwhile substack describing woes of cleaning up bad science by @jamesheathers.bsky.social
Exactly a year ago, a paper claimed apple cider vinegar was as effective as Ozempic for weight loss. *Clearly wrong.*
This is the story of exactly one year of dealing with this paper.
And the very normal, very complete failure of governance that resulted.
open.substack.com/pub/jamescla...
This is the story of exactly one year of dealing with this paper.
And the very normal, very complete failure of governance that resulted.
open.substack.com/pub/jamescla...
Research Integrity Is A Clown Car Which Continually Spills Forth A Truly Surprising Quantity Of Sad, Honking, Incompetent Clowns
The anatomy of an utter failure of academic governance
open.substack.com
May 1, 2025 at 4:52 PM
“I’m not complaining, and I don’t expect you to feel sorry for me. I chose to be shaken in this bag of rats. At any point, we could all have done nothing.” and other amazing metaphors in this worthwhile substack describing woes of cleaning up bad science by @jamesheathers.bsky.social
Replications are just as valuable as “original” research. Is this a hot take? If you disagree, have you actually read one or tried to do one?
February 21, 2025 at 10:31 PM
Replications are just as valuable as “original” research. Is this a hot take? If you disagree, have you actually read one or tried to do one?
In case people needed another reason not to be a jerk to their coworkers… hbr.org/2025/01/rese...
Research: Incivility at Work Silences Everyone, But Especially Women
Incivility at work isn’t good for anyone. But while both men and women are less likely to speak up in uncivil environments, women are more likely to withhold their ideas due to concerns about gender b...
hbr.org
January 21, 2025 at 4:47 PM
In case people needed another reason not to be a jerk to their coworkers… hbr.org/2025/01/rese...
New recording by Salt Lake City band Hoofless “Get In”. This song is so good open.spotify.com/track/6DbLgT...
Get In
Listen to Get In on Spotify. Song · Hoofless · 2024
open.spotify.com
July 29, 2024 at 7:02 PM
New recording by Salt Lake City band Hoofless “Get In”. This song is so good open.spotify.com/track/6DbLgT...
If scientists disagree about conclusions or analyses while doing research and writing a paper, should they hide it to tell a better story to the public? No… www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
@nicholascoles.bsky.social @jasonchin.bsky.social @roseodea.bsky.social @jackfriedrich @alexh.bsky.social
@nicholascoles.bsky.social @jasonchin.bsky.social @roseodea.bsky.social @jackfriedrich @alexh.bsky.social
Team scientists should normalize disagreement
www.science.org
June 7, 2024 at 1:45 PM
If scientists disagree about conclusions or analyses while doing research and writing a paper, should they hide it to tell a better story to the public? No… www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
@nicholascoles.bsky.social @jasonchin.bsky.social @roseodea.bsky.social @jackfriedrich @alexh.bsky.social
@nicholascoles.bsky.social @jasonchin.bsky.social @roseodea.bsky.social @jackfriedrich @alexh.bsky.social
If the field moves more to open or transparent peer review, certain groups may systematically receive harsher reviews, or biased and embarrassing comments from reviewers, and public seeing that uncritically is problematic. Along with openness we need metascience, post pub convo, and accountability
There is increasing interest in openness in peer review.
But to ensure equity, diversity, and inclusion, we need to ask critical questions:
Who is being asked to be “open” and at what cost?
How should we promote openness and transparency without exacerbating inequities?
Check out our post below!
But to ensure equity, diversity, and inclusion, we need to ask critical questions:
Who is being asked to be “open” and at what cost?
How should we promote openness and transparency without exacerbating inequities?
Check out our post below!
Shifting the culture of peer review with Reviewer Zero
Our work engages with editors, reviewers, and authors to create cultural shifts in scientific peer review to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion in psychology and neuroscience. As peer review prac...
forrt.org
May 23, 2024 at 3:34 PM
If the field moves more to open or transparent peer review, certain groups may systematically receive harsher reviews, or biased and embarrassing comments from reviewers, and public seeing that uncritically is problematic. Along with openness we need metascience, post pub convo, and accountability
“I don’t want to move to Toronto” 🎵🎶🎤 sing it @mattarbogast
open.spotify.com/track/65fpaJ...
open.spotify.com/track/65fpaJ...
Toronto
Loose Collars · Song · 2024
open.spotify.com
April 19, 2024 at 6:33 PM
“I don’t want to move to Toronto” 🎵🎶🎤 sing it @mattarbogast
open.spotify.com/track/65fpaJ...
open.spotify.com/track/65fpaJ...
The 3Ps:
The 1st P in deciding which project to work on is People. Work with people you like who use good research practices.
The 2nd is passion. The topic should be worthwhile.
The 3rd is publishable (used to be p-value). Work on projects with solid data/results.
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
The 1st P in deciding which project to work on is People. Work with people you like who use good research practices.
The 2nd is passion. The topic should be worthwhile.
The 3rd is publishable (used to be p-value). Work on projects with solid data/results.
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
People, passion, publishable: an early-career researcher’s checklist for prioritizing projects
Stuck between several lines of research? Here’s how we decide which ones to pursue, say Elizabeth Tenney, Jacqueline Chen and McKenzie Preston. Stuck between several lines of research? Here’s how we d...
www.nature.com
March 18, 2024 at 2:33 PM
The 3Ps:
The 1st P in deciding which project to work on is People. Work with people you like who use good research practices.
The 2nd is passion. The topic should be worthwhile.
The 3rd is publishable (used to be p-value). Work on projects with solid data/results.
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
The 1st P in deciding which project to work on is People. Work with people you like who use good research practices.
The 2nd is passion. The topic should be worthwhile.
The 3rd is publishable (used to be p-value). Work on projects with solid data/results.
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Voice-to-text message from my youngest. He’s really got the hang of it.
March 1, 2024 at 9:09 PM
Voice-to-text message from my youngest. He’s really got the hang of it.
Reposted by Liz Tenney
I’m a fan of trying to quantify how often reviewers & editors check authors’ preregistrations (eg, by @syeducation.bsky.social), but also we should not forget that reviewers fail to check for deviations from a priori plans in 100% of unpreregistered studies. Because they can’t.
December 15, 2023 at 6:50 AM
I’m a fan of trying to quantify how often reviewers & editors check authors’ preregistrations (eg, by @syeducation.bsky.social), but also we should not forget that reviewers fail to check for deviations from a priori plans in 100% of unpreregistered studies. Because they can’t.
Was trying to tell a friend about Bluesky, said what do you do that’s cool we can look it up. He said golf. No results found for #tigerwoods. How does this thing work? Is this the first discussion about Tiger?
December 17, 2023 at 4:26 AM
Was trying to tell a friend about Bluesky, said what do you do that’s cool we can look it up. He said golf. No results found for #tigerwoods. How does this thing work? Is this the first discussion about Tiger?
Reposted by Liz Tenney
Some Data Indicating that Editors and Reviewers Do Not Check Preregistrations during the Review Process: http://osf.io/nh7qw/
December 8, 2023 at 3:08 PM
Some Data Indicating that Editors and Reviewers Do Not Check Preregistrations during the Review Process: http://osf.io/nh7qw/
Had a manuscript rejected at #AMJ. Boilerplate language in letter “encourages” open science practices like posting data & preregistration. No acknowledgement we did these. If AMJ cares about “transparency and rigor” Editorial team should get training on how to weight it, or #OS should be required.
December 15, 2023 at 2:31 AM