Ingo Rohlfing

@ingorohlfing
1.3K Followers
934 Following
2.1K Posts
I am here for all interesting and funny posts on the social sciences, broadly understood, academia, teaching, research and science
ORCIDhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8715-4771
Linktreehttps://linktr.ee/ingorohlfing
Githubhttps://github.com/ingorohlfing
Personal websitehttps://ingorohlfing.wordpress.com/

Deutschland beteiligt sich an "Open Research Europe" #ORE. Über die Plattform können Wissenschaftler*innen aller deutschen Forschungseinrichtungen ihre Ergebnisse künftig kostenfrei veröffentlichen und in einem offenen Verfahren begutachten lassen. Die DFG wurde vom @bmftr_bund mit der Durchführung beauftragt.

Einzelheiten:
➡️https://www.dfg.de/de/aktuelles/neuigkeiten-themen/info-wissenschaft/2026/ifw-26-21

29 years of #rstats community knowledge was sitting in hard-to-search pipermail archives. So I built a more modern home for it.

Introducing the R Mailing List Archives: 631,000+ messages from 32 lists, fully searchable and available as open data.

https://r-mailing-lists.thecoatlessprofessor.com/

c) Methodologically, the article states several times "To minimize researcher degrees of freedom" in relation with the use of an LLM and prompting. This seems to miss the point because the prompting is the main degree of freedom in this analysis. 3/
is not convincing to me. This is discussed in the article, but I think abstracts should be compared to ideology at the time, which would be harder to study. From the top of my head, I'd say it is not surprising that most abstracts are coded as left against a 2025 ideological reference point, and that the share would be smaller if compared to earlier years.
b) It looks like it's not filtered for authors in/from US. I don't see why research from non-US authors should be compared to US ideology. 2/
The ideological orientation of academic social science research 1960–2024
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11186-026-09690-2
I cannot say much about the text analysis that is LLM-based, but some thoughts on other elements of the analysis:
a) Analyzing ideological stance of abstracts from 1960-2024 against a US 2025 ideological spectrum 1/
The ideological orientation of academic social science research 1960–2024 - Theory and Society

This study analyzes approximately 600,000 English-language social science abstracts published between 1960 and 2024 to estimate the long-run ideological orientation of disciplinary research output. Large language models (LLMs) were applied to each abstract using a fixed 2025 U.S. ideological spectrum, enabling consistent coding across six decades. Five key findings emerged. First, roughly 90 percent of politically relevant social science articles leaned left 1960–2024, and the mean political stance of every social science discipline was left-of-center every year during the period. Second, all disciplines showed leftward movement between 1990 and 2024. Third, policy-proximal disciplines generally showed limited rightward moderation between roughly 1970 and 1990, though policy-distal disciplines did not. Fourth, disciplines with greater leftward orientation generally displayed greater ideological homogeneity Fifth, sociocultural content was more consistently left-leaning than economic content, and that gap widened over time. Robustness checks using a wide assortment of alternative datasets and analytical methodologies indicated that these findings were unlikely to be artifacts of idiosyncratic assumptions. Methodologically, the study demonstrates the capacity of LLM-based text classification to deliver reliable, large-scale ideological measurement over time, a task previously impractical with human coding alone. Taken together, the analysis provides the first systematic, cross-disciplinary evidence of the long-run political orientation of anglophone social science scholarship, revealing both the persistence and the intensification of its leftward tendencies, particularly in sociocultural domains.

SpringerLink

Hamburger Uni bleibt exzellent

Die Spitze glänzt, die Basis erodiert

„Die Uni Hamburg bleibt Exzellenzuniversität und bekommt Millionenförderung. Aber hinter der Erfolgsmeldung verbirgt sich eine strukturelle Krise.“

https://taz.de/Hamburger-Uni-bleibt-exzellent/!6162029/

Hamburger Uni bleibt exzellent: Die Spitze glänzt, die Basis erodiert

Die Uni Hamburg bleibt Exzellenzuniversität und bekommt Millionenförderung. Aber hinter der Erfolgsmeldung verbirgt sich eine strukturelle Krise.

TAZ Verlags- und Vertriebs GmbH

In case you've just written a paper and are still uncertain where to publish it (but you want to publish it Open Access, of course!), the TIB Hanover has the right tool for you: their Bibliometric and Semantic Open Access Recommender Network (BISON). It finds suitable Open Access journals based on the title, abstract, and references of your paper and, perhaps most important, is GDPR-compliant and does not store any of your data.

https://service.tib.eu/bison/

B!SON - the Open-Access journal recommender

B!SON is an independent, open service that lets you find Open-Access journals for your publication based on title, abstract and references.

However, I doubt all research questions can be answered with naturally occurring data and that their collection may come with their own ethical challenges. I don't think it is implied by the article, but I would argue against making the RQs one asks conditional on naturally occuring data. 2/
Against Recruiting Participants for Psychology Research https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000354 I see the reasons that account for cautioning against the recruitment of participants for social research. It is a good suggestion to check whether the research question can be answered with naturally occurring data. 1/
Many Open Science initiatives and infrastructures do amazing work but visibility and outreach remain big challenges. How do you make sure your work actually reaches the people who need it?
Join OSPARK Online: Ensuring your Open Science is seen, used, and sustained.
An interactive workshop co-organised by the DRA and Open Life Science for people working in libraries, IT, research support, or running Open Science projects.
26 March 2026
13:00–15:00 (online)
Register:
https://events.digital-research.academy/event/130/