🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

No, but I have a feeling you're going to.

Oh Jesus Christ I copied the corresponding author into some background discussion about their manuscript. Somebody shoot me.

New preprint! So, you are wondering how to test the performance of a study appraisal tool? Wonder no more! (This is for a tool for assessing internal validity of in vitro studies, but the general lessons apply. Warning: contains power analysis.) zenodo.org/record/8315605

Can't help but wonder if social media encourages in me a certain degree of overfamiliarity with people who are basically complete strangers.

We have had to cobble together a workflow out of a few different parts, but overall (a) it really does seem to work, (b) it at least hits our mark on transparency, and (c) EBT has its first paper out, so is a proper, real journal! 🥳 This has been a big lift from a lot of people

I am against inflicting style guides on authors, but at least PLoS has fun doing it. :)

The primary reason for the so-called "replication crisis" is that no scholar seeks to replicate the same findings and same theoretical insights in their work. We always strive for NEW findings. If you want us to write the same paper over and over, we won't get anywhere.

Automating compliance with #PRISMA & reporting checklists, AND SR conduct guidance... who might be interested in this? EQUATOR Network Andrew Booth @carrieprice78 Neal R Haddaway @nealhaddaway.bsky.social James Thomas Ruth Garside 🇪🇺 💙🌻 huh there is nobody on this platform anymore tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

Yep, do it! Get more email - but email worth getting! I promise.

Nothing annoying about editing a flood of papers bemoaning how the lack of good training data for language models has held back automated evidence synthesis in environmental health, when five years ago your proposal to do exactly that was derided as pointless. I'm not bitter. :)

This is where our "no rejections" policy at my journal looks so strong - it forces us to engage with the development of a promising and potentially important manuscript, where other journals may not put in the time.

A cool thing I got the chance to do.

Cannot for the life of me understand why this has happened.

That feeling when you are reviewing a paper and find that a different reviewer has recommended your own paper be included as an important reference, so you don't have to. 💪

This is a great paper that was a real pleasure to edit. There is an interesting take on what "preregistration" ought to mean (basically, if sight of data was possible, you shouldn't call your study plan a preregistration but something else). Well-argued state of the science.

This is very cool, and I can't believe I get to be involved in Noah flourishing. (Did I get that right?)

EBT is participating in what is probably the first-ever randomised controlled trial of an intervention to improve peer-review. It is... complicated, because it turns out running controlled trials in journals is just unbelievably difficult to do, but Noah has us covered.🤘

Editor-in-Chief highlight of the week? Peer-review report for a protocol for testing automated data extraction tools. Really constructive, esp. on planned analysis methods - so often missing from protocols, and so easy to miss the missing as a reviewer. zenodo.org/records/133671…