Tomas Formo Langkaas
LightNews LightNews
banner
tflangkaas.bsky.social
Tomas Formo Langkaas
@tflangkaas.bsky.social
1.8K followers 1.3K following 450 posts
Clinical psychologist by trade. Interested in mental health, science, visual communication, emotions, music theory. Self-diagnosed introvert. Lives in Norway. Enjoys the outdoors.

Occasional researcher: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-sSXrIgAAA
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
tflangkaas.bsky.social
Tomas Formo Langkaas @tflangkaas.bsky.social · Nov 3
Good to know I'm way ahead on this. Haven't published anything in years.
aaronjfisher.bsky.social Aaron Fisher @aaronjfisher.bsky.social · Nov 3
I completely agree that people should be publishing less—to increase the quality of the work, to reduce content redundancy, to reduce burden on the editorial system. But I want to emphasize every chance I get: You do NOT need pubs to get into grad school. Please, let's stop this myth now.
hollysully.bsky.social Holly Sullivan-Toole @hollysully.bsky.social · Nov 3
The change is palpable. I've worked for people (not much older than me) who only had a couple first authors when they got their TT job. Every post-doc I know has way more than that. Now it seems like people have to have a couple first authors to even get into some grad programs.
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
conjugateprior.org
The secret to not worrying about the ever increasing volume of research papers is the ability to evaluate a methods section for obvious horseshit. Turns out, not reading those papers frees up a lot of time that you can spend worrying about the appalling research waste.
November 12, 2025 at 11:35 AM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
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 Tomas Formo Langkaas
rmcelreath.bsky.social
yes please and thank you
November 12, 2025 at 10:40 AM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
autismcrisis.bsky.social
"preliminary evidence" that "ABA therapy may be associated with increased odds of mental health hospitalizations and more frequent hospital stays among autistic youth" journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/... "future inquiry into the safety of ABA and who may or may not be harmed by it is essential..."
Sage Journals: Discover world-class research
Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.
journals.sagepub.com
November 11, 2025 at 10:50 AM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
cameronpat.bsky.social
g-computation? g-estimation? g-formula? g-arbage names!
November 8, 2025 at 1:49 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
astridoverthere.bsky.social
Wondering why no one likes your posts anymore, even among your friends? It's because @jay.bsky.team and team have decided to hide a huge amount of content from all of our feeds by default.

Here's how to turn it off.

First go to the hamburger menu in the upper left corner
Screenshot of the top of a Bsky feed, with a red circle around the hamburger menu in the top left.
November 6, 2025 at 6:23 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
tkaiser.science
Pre-post effect sizes neatly rise with baseline severity in this evaluation of inpatient/day treatment outcomes…

www.frontiersin.org/journals/psy...
November 3, 2025 at 10:05 AM
tflangkaas.bsky.social
Trump simultaneously fantasizing about a Nobel War Prize.
akbarshahidahmed.huffpost.com Akbar Shahid Ahmed @akbarshahidahmed.huffpost.com · 11d
NEW: As Trump escalates against Venezuela, US troops may face unlawful orders.

Guardrails offer little hope of preventing war or crimes (including domestically) because "there was already a precedent the president could blow up anybody who he said was a terrorist"
www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-...
This Is The ‘Scariest Part’ Of Trump’s Attacks In The Caribbean
The Trump administration is barreling towards a war in Venezuela with minimal checks or clarity around top officials' policy-making goals.
www.huffpost.com
November 1, 2025 at 5:22 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
eikofried.bsky.social
Eye-opening work on heterogeneity among depression scales. Also, I’m a pluralist and everything, but … do we need 27 youth depression scales? Why have researchers not updated and further developed them? What does this say about the state of our field?
hcp4715.bsky.social Hu Chuan-Peng @hcp4715.bsky.social · 12d
Great to see our content analysis of 27 Chinese youth depression scales finally out!

Following @eikofried.bsky.social excellent work on depression scales, we included 27 scales and quantified the heterogeneity by analyzing data from 12,000 youth who completed 4 of them.

Comments are welcome!
November 1, 2025 at 6:15 AM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
dryohanjohn.bsky.social
One thing that I find very confusing about modern AI research is the lack of a clear conceptual separation between contingent empirical findings and necessary consequences of the model architecture or analytic framework.
October 31, 2025 at 8:12 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
bitesizetherapy.bsky.social
If only this were a cardigan, he could be “Therapist Batman”
October 30, 2025 at 4:45 PM
tflangkaas.bsky.social
“The reality is a lot of parts of a research project are determined in the *design,* not in the analysis.”

Yes.
grimalkina.bsky.social Cat Hicks @grimalkina.bsky.social · 16d
The reality is a lot of parts of a research project are determined in the *design,* not in the analysis.

That's why serious projects have lit reviews and unserious projects have "our stakeholders liked these words"
October 28, 2025 at 10:25 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
psych.peercommunityin.org
Have you heard about PCI Psychology (or another PCI, like PCI Registered Reports) but are not really sure how it works? This video is a good introduction www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PZh... but we'd love to hear your questions! Please reply to this thread and repost for reach!
Peer Community In. What is it?
The project "Peer Community in (PCI)" (https://peercommunityin.org/) has been launched in January 2017 and now counts 11 communities: PCI Evolutionary Biology (https://evolbiol.peercommunityin.org/),…
www.youtube.com
October 28, 2025 at 2:15 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
grimalkina.bsky.social
Honestly, if you value content you've created always make sure it has a home outside of a single company. Always.
October 28, 2025 at 2:52 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
lastpositivist.bsky.social
But, like, what if that's just everything? What if government and journalism and medicine and law all work that way? I don't know, I just assumed they did not; but now I think about it do I know that? I don't think I do. What if there is never any reasonable system in place?
October 28, 2025 at 8:54 AM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
tophepahle.bsky.social
Det er nye saker som dette HVER DAG nå. Vi er langt forbi at dette bare er pinlig for de involverte. Dette er ikke en bug ved KI-hypen, men en feature.

Det er helt vilt at hverken medier eller politikere er på ballen her på et mer overordnet, strukturelt nivå.
NTB trakk sak med falske sitater og falsk kilde: – En veldig alvorlig feil
Fem av fem Telenor-sitater, og navnet på direktør, var oppdiktet. Feil bruk av KI, forklarer redaktør.
www.journalisten.no
October 28, 2025 at 10:34 AM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
odarygh.bsky.social
"What are the policy implications"
October 28, 2025 at 7:14 AM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
karlbode.com
I cannot tell you how many tech journalists at prominent media organizations do not understand this
astrokatie.com Katie Mack @astrokatie.com · Jun 19
Chatbots — LLMs — do not know facts and are not designed to be able to accurately answer factual questions. They are designed to find and mimic patterns of words, probabilistically. When they’re “right” it’s because correct things are often written down, so those patterns are frequent. That’s all.
October 27, 2025 at 3:32 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
festlegen.bsky.social
Hvis noen lurer på hvordan man skal få sykepleiere (og andre deltidsansatte) over i fulle stillinger så er dette svaret.
lonorge.bsky.social LO @lonorge.bsky.social · 16d
Denne EU-dommen vil bety mye for mange i små stillinger!

Nå vil deltidsansatte kunne få rett til overtidsbetaling allerede når de jobber mer enn sin egen stillingsprosent, ikke først når de har nådd full stilling.
Reglene om overtid kan bli endret
Nye EU-dommer kan føre til store endringer for deltidsansatte. Nå kan det bli slutt på at ansatte i deltidsstillinger må jobbe like mye som heltidsansatte før de får overtidsbetalt.
www.lo.no
October 27, 2025 at 5:43 PM
tflangkaas.bsky.social
An effect size is not the size of an effect?

Keep going like this, someone suddenly will claim the placebo response is not the response to placebo either.
protzko.bsky.social Protzko @protzko.bsky.social · 16d
Problem I'm mulling over right now, curious if anyone has thoughts or citations relevant (for and against):

"Effect size is NOT the size of the causal effect."

#phdsky #stats #meta
October 27, 2025 at 2:33 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
ajordannafa.com
Nearly all instances of "multiverse analysis" should have been a well-defined sensitivity analysis that interrogates a specific assumption or set of assumptions we have reason to believe may not be reliable.
rmcelreath.bsky.social Richard McElreath 🐈‍⬛ @rmcelreath.bsky.social · 20d
When there is a random way to do something, there is a less random way that is better but requires more thought. In this case, regression models that make no sense don't belong in a multiverse analysis. An inferential regression without a causal justification is like an opinion without reasons.
jbakcoleman.bsky.social Joe Bak-Coleman @jbakcoleman.bsky.social · 21d
Great piece on the absurdity of brute force multiverse analyses.

www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
October 25, 2025 at 8:28 PM
tflangkaas.bsky.social
Hadn’t read this before. @emilymbender.bsky.social reminds us that scholarship is conversation and presents convincing reasons for doing science slowly.

An additional thought is that making science into any kind of competition is the opposite of doing science slowly.
“Scholarship should be open, inclusive and slow”
October 24, 2025 at 7:24 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
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 · 19d
“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 Tomas Formo Langkaas
rbreich.bsky.social
The brutality. The corruption. The lies.

Everything is on full display — and many Americans are beginning to learn an important lesson.

Watch.
October 22, 2025 at 5:01 PM
Reposted by Tomas Formo Langkaas
katestarbird.bsky.social
This is how many conspiracy theories work, by exploiting real anger from legitimate grievances (often downstream from complex,
unjust systems) and redirecting it onto scapegoats through simplified “conspiracy” narratives.
grimalkina.bsky.social Cat Hicks @grimalkina.bsky.social · 20d
Been thinking about how MAHA in its current articulation is a movement that allows them to harness people's real and justified anger at things like the betrayals of healthcare and insurance and turn it on scientists as scapegoats, by using conspiracy theories
October 22, 2025 at 7:46 PM