Experimental Psychologist Eindhoven University of Technology in The Netherlands. Chair ERB. I work on making science more reliable and efficient. Likes teaching statistics, bouldering, and walks with my wife and dog. I do not interact with anonymous accounts.
Profile picture: Florian Braakman https://florianbraakman.nl/
| Free online statistics textbook: | https://lakens.github.io/statistical_inferences/ |
| Publications: | https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZbqYyrsAAAAJ&hl=nl |
| podcast | https://nulliusinverba.podbean.com/ |
| Github | https://github.com/Lakens/ |
"comprehensive study pre-registrations or Registered Reports, which ensure peer reviewing of the study protocol and acceptance in principle before data collection and analysis, are a readily implementable measure that should be considered essential."
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2026.1809421/full
Approximately 40% of all studies preregistered on the Open Science Framework are never shared publicly. That’s a lot. Researchers give several reason, and null results and bad planning (or lack of priority) are the main reasons.
In standard scientific reports in psych 96% of first mentioned main hypotheses are supported. In Registered Reports, this is 46%. The 96% is clearly biased (given true H1 rate and power). Lack of transparency means we do not know the true baserate.
Babbage, 1830, discussing the problem that scientists selectively report findings that they want to be true.
Confirmation bias is a strong human tendency. This is why we need to design science in a way that prevents conformation bias from leading us away from the truth.
