







I missed a lot of #metascience discourse in hospital, and am mostly sad I didn't get a chance to wade in on the absurdity of this being a paper in Nature in 2026; ignoring a decade of commentary from statisticians on OSC 2015 paper. nature.com/articles/s41586-025-10078-y
Investigating the replicability of the social and behavioural sciences - Nature
www.nature.comJun 4, 2026 at 8:26 PM
Jason Shepherd on Twitter / X
I have quite a lot of thoughts on this..that won't fit in a tweet. Bottomline is that there are issues scientists in the US would love to improve - faster review, less grant writing, more stability and freedom to do risky science. The folks celebrating this doc are mostly../1 https://t.co/xlPAH9XYNC— Jason Shepherd (@JasonSynaptic) July 23, 2026
Andreas De Block on Twitter / X
It took Nature three years to publish this rebuttal, which clearly demonstrates the fundamental flaws in the original paper. In the meantime, the paper's conclusions influenced scientific debate and policy decisions. Such delays in correcting flawed research do real damage. https://t.co/QI3Ei3PE70— Andreas De Block (@DeblockBlock) August 13, 2026
Guest post: If you’re going to critique science, be scientific about it
Loren K. Mell Editor’s note: This post responds to a Feb. 13 article in The Atlantic, “The Scientific Literature Can’t Save Us Now,” written by Retraction Watch cofounders Adam Marcus and Ivan Oran…

Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters by Steven Pinker
In the twenty-first century, humanity is reaching new heights of scientific understanding—and at ...

The Current Crisis: What's Happening to Science in America
Is the scientific paper due to be replaced?
AI is pushing scientific publishing to the brink. For neuroscience, the crisis may be an opportunity to finally connect findings across subfields.

Is the scientific paper due to be replaced?
AI is pushing scientific publishing to the brink. For neuroscience, the crisis may be an opportunity to finally connect findings across subfields.

Metaventory — the meta-science community
A comprehensive community of the people building meta-science and the tools they make — psychology and economics first, growing science-wide.

Metascience for whom? A question as old as science.
Before we fix science, we need to ask who built it!
Decolonising Science Reading List
In the last couple of weeks, a lot of people have been asking me about what I’ve been reading as reference points for my commentary on the…

Dark-Moneyed Denialists Are Running 'Fixing Science' Symposium of Doubt
The “Fixing Science” symposium, which is hosted by the National Association of Scholars and kicks off today in Oakland, California, includes credible speakers who want to improve some areas of science hurt by the use of poor statistical methods or making irreproducible claims. Unfortunately, they are outnumbered by people who have often cast doubt on mainstream climate, environmental, and health sciences. For […]

The one science reform we can all agree on, but we're too cowardly to do
OR: the long overdue forest fire

interesting to see them citing the meta-crisis and failure to address it as a prime reason for moving on - "our wisdom must grow in equal measure to our capacity to affect the world, lest we face the consequences" raising meta-crisis awareness among AI researchers is a great way to reduce x-risk 👍 >
norvid_studies
another one for the scrapbook @gracekind.net
I am disappointed by the fact that so many seem tempted to share a "nonrigorous", unserious attempt at quantifying fraud in science because it passes some silly vibe check ("I asked others and they agree"). So in the name of good science, we're ready to produce bad science as a rhetorical tool.
Here’s relevant paper on #metascience lit from 2018, 7 years and a pandemic ago. This hasn’t been hypothetical or hard to see. During the pandemic science reform was weaponized by Ioannidis, Prasad, Bhattacharya, etc and lives were lost. pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1708276114
Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of science | PNAS
www.pnas.org