Tim Ricker
@timricker.bsky.social
Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of South Dakota | PI of the Memory & Attention Laboratory | Fan of chess, cards, video games, & hiking.
Reposted by Tim Ricker
Last year a bunch of us wrote about the issue of incentives and possible alternatives. I’m not in love with any of the options we reviewed but I *am* happy we were able to highlight major aspects of the problem in a highly visible space www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for journal reform | PNAS
For most researchers, academic publishing serves two goals that are often misaligned—knowledge
dissemination and establishing scientific credential...
www.pnas.org
November 12, 2025 at 9:32 AM
Last year a bunch of us wrote about the issue of incentives and possible alternatives. I’m not in love with any of the options we reviewed but I *am* happy we were able to highlight major aspects of the problem in a highly visible space www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
Reposted by Tim Ricker
5% is quite a lot if you think about it. Huge N gives you the luxury to reduce alpha by a lot and still keep very high power. E.g., alpha = 0.5% (0.005) would give you 98.8% power for the same effect (in a t-test). The best balance depends on the cost of each error type, see tinyurl.com/yut35b3u >
Justify Your Alpha by Minimizing or Balancing Error Rates
A preprint ("Justify Your Alpha: A Primer on Two Practical Approaches") that extends the ideas in this blog post is available at: https://ps...
tinyurl.com
October 31, 2025 at 8:13 AM
5% is quite a lot if you think about it. Huge N gives you the luxury to reduce alpha by a lot and still keep very high power. E.g., alpha = 0.5% (0.005) would give you 98.8% power for the same effect (in a t-test). The best balance depends on the cost of each error type, see tinyurl.com/yut35b3u >