Read our paper if you're curious or reach out if you have any questions. Kudos to my great coauthor team Tobia Spampatti
@tspampatti.bsky.social, Sebastian Gluth @sgluth.bsky.social , Kim-Pong Tam & Ulf Hahnel. Happy Halloween everyone 🎃🧛 /end

I revamped a figure from our paper showing our results in a nutshell: Even during the short experimental time, in the U.S., we find climate concern in the sample diverges between participants with different information diets. 3/4

In our recent paper, we use a sampling paradigm to investigate how people consume Pro-climate information and Anti-climate disinformation. In representative samples from three nations, we find belief-confirming sampling and processing and that the messages influenced climate concern. 2/4

In our recent paper, we use a sampling paradigm to investigate how people consume Pro-climate information and Anti-climate disinformation. In representative samples from three nations, we find belief-confirming sampling and processing and that the messages influenced climate concern. 2/4

@cambridgeup.bsky.social

We could move to an online-journal club culture, with "peer review" badges, after a paper has gone through a process similar to classical peer review. Researchers could up-vote articles they find worth reading which could be used as an additional metric of paper performance.

I am not❗talking about the peer review. The (unpaid) peer reviewers were very helpful, diligent and helped to improve the paper.

On preprint-servers, the review process could continue (indefinitely): readers could comment or spot errors and authors could update new versions.

What about the weirdly rendered inline math, you may ask: well (almost) nothing happened. Fixing the .html would be very easy. I even offered I could do it.

I did not find Cambridge University Press helpful. I find the layout of my preprint better readable (okay, probably I am biased).

It took 6 weeks until an erratum was published. It does admit that the error stemmed from the publisher side, but this is not obvious at first glance. Also, this is not very practical: You need to compare the original article and the table in the erratum (& you need to find it in the first place).

There was more. My co-author spotted an error in a table. The error had not occurred in the proof, not in the submitted files and not in any preprint version. A wrongfully inserted zero distorted the meaning.

It should be easy to update online-only articles and delete a wrong character.

Right after the publication, I noticed problems in the web (html) version. I realized, whenever I had used inline math in the .tex file, it was pasted as a picture into the web version (which I never saw during the proofing process, only the pdf version). The screenshots are two examples of many.

To be fair, most other radiative consequences of flying are very short lived though, other than the carbon emissions.

psychologie.unibas.ch/en/persons/r...

Check out the preprint here osf.io/preprints/ps... with open data, analysis and supplementary materials. Thanks to all coauthors (5/5)

We used real-world statements from Twitter/X with climate disinformation ("Anti Climate") and climate information ("Pro Climate"). In a sequential sampling paradigm, participants sampled from Pro and Anti Climate sources over 15 rounds. (4/5)