@johnntowse@mstdn.social
@johnntowse@mstdn.social avatar

johnntowse

@johnntowse@mstdn.social

Experimental psychologist. Interested in cognitive science, research rigour, and fun interdisciplinary spaces.
Exploring the NW of England by foot, bike and wetsuit, sometimes joined by the dog.
#WorkingMemory #ExecutiveFunction #cognition #OpenScience

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

mrundkvist, (edited ) to history
@mrundkvist@archaeo.social avatar

I'm looking for a good of and before medicalisation. I want to know how people with these symptoms were described, conceptualised and classified in the centuries prior to WW1, when they were simply seen as lazy or eccentric or a little funny, not recognised as having developmental disorders. No history of 20th century psychiatry needed.

johnntowse,
@johnntowse@mstdn.social avatar

@mrundkvist
Hi. Do you mean something like this for ADHD in the mid-19th century: https://www.drkenny.com/fidgety-phil ?

nicolaromano, to random
@nicolaromano@qoto.org avatar

Do you do group #assessments for your #highered courses? How do you deal with "free-riders" who don't engage with the rest of the group?

At the moment I'm thinking of

  • having students include a statement of who has done what in their final product
  • having a couple of sessions (beginning of term and mid-term) where each group presents a plan first and a short progress report later, which clearly states student contributions
  • stress to the students that part of the idea for a group assessment is for them to organise and work in a group. I'm a bit torn on this one as it seems unfair to put the onus for those who don't engage on those who do... but hey that's what happens in real life...

Any other ideas?

johnntowse,
@johnntowse@mstdn.social avatar

@nicolaromano

Rachel Hayes-Harb discusses her approach to student collaboration and group assessment in the following webinar;
https://youtu.be/5ExuqTkNNuU
For the specific coverage of your questions, start from about 9.30 in

petersuber, to random
@petersuber@fediscience.org avatar

Good question from on policies: "How do we move from a compliance mindset, which promotes a minimalist approach in which researchers might only put in the minimum amount of effort and thus potentially share poorly documented or disorganized data, to an ecosystem that actually enables and rewards open, equitable, and accessible scholarship?"
https://datacurationnetwork.org/2023/11/20/beyond-compliance-curation-as-essential-open-science-infrastructure/

johnntowse,
@johnntowse@mstdn.social avatar

@petersuber

Yes - it's a vital question!

And the points made about the need for support, incentives, recognition, etc, are important and well made.

It's undoubtedly a complex issue, with no silver bullet. But, with apologies for self-reference, I'd also suggest there's a critical need to consider how to normalise, and how to train, the practices we wish to nurture - before we see them play out in high stakes arenas: doi.org/10.1080/26939169.2022.…

albertcardona, to academia
@albertcardona@mathstodon.xyz avatar

"To win one of these coveted positions, then, you need to do everything exactly right from your freshman year of high school onward: get good grades, garner strong recommendations, work in the right labs, publish papers in prestigious places, never make anybody mad, and never take a detour or a break." – Adam Mastroianni https://www.experimental-history.com/p/ideas-arent-getting-harder-to-find

I had less than stellar grades throughout my undergrad until the last year; I did undergrad and grad research in a fringe lab at a low-ranked university – which afforded me huge freedoms –; I published my first glamour paper after I was tenured and only because my co-authors insisted on the venue; I made many people mad by telling them what I thought instead of what they wanted to hear to the point that I had to reapply 3 years later; and I took breaks to rear children. All of this between the years 2000 and 2015.

Despite everything you may hear, there is room for being creative and getting away with it. I am not an exception, plenty of peers had similarly awkward career paths.

johnntowse,
@johnntowse@mstdn.social avatar

@albertcardona @UlrikeHahn @neuralreckoning
In the same way, just because some particular glamour journal has a pitiful acceptance rate does not mean that all other dissemination venues are career cul-de-sacs…
Surely we all benefit from recognising the breadth and diversity of pathways, and moving beyond some ultra narrow definition of success (did you go there? Did you publish here? Did so-and-so cite you?)

Private
johnntowse,
@johnntowse@mstdn.social avatar

@alexh @cognition
This is a fantastic resource, thanks!

BTW, chapter 5, the link to see the circled mountain-lion generates a not found message.

ct_bergstrom, to random
@ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org avatar

It’s quite odd. Despite a supposed crisis of overburdened peer reviewers, many editors of the elite journal seem unwilling to make even basic decisions on their own, without coming back to reviewers repeatedly.

This summer I have reviewed several papers where I have said something to the effect of “the authors have addressed my concerns and I encourage publication of the paper in its present form”, only to have the paper come back to me for a third or fourth time for further review.

Why?

johnntowse,
@johnntowse@mstdn.social avatar

@ct_bergstrom
… maybe because on author resubmission, the journal web system defaults to sending out messages to the full rosta of original reviewers (regardless of reviewer recommendations)? And the AE lacks the technical nous or the awareness of the system to restrict the contact list?

Which wouldn’t change the frustration you rightfully experience -but implies it is less deliberate waste of time than poor design workflow (probably from a commercial product!)?

johnntowse, to Cognition
@johnntowse@mstdn.social avatar

Special issue of QJEP to celebrate 50 years of the Baddeley & Hitch working memory model.

Important reminder: Two weeks to go before the deadline for your letter of intent! So there's still time for you to submit a template of your work for inclusion 😃

Details at:
https://mark-hurlstone.github.io/QJEP-Special-Issue/

ct_bergstrom, (edited ) to science
@ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org avatar

Remember that abysmal attempt at creating a fake paper detector that magazine trumpeted? The one that just looked to see if you used your institutional email address, had international collaborators, and were affiliated with a hospital?

The one that instantiated the authors biases and then they turned around and used as evidence for those biases?

Science has just published the letter that Brandon Ogbunugafor and I wrote in response.

Kudos to them for that...

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi7104

johnntowse,
@johnntowse@mstdn.social avatar

@ct_bergstrom
Their response suggests that they’ve forgotten the first Law of Holes …

johnntowse, to random
@johnntowse@mstdn.social avatar

Call for psychology papers! Please Boost!

Exciting special issue information about now official! @qjep in 2024 will be celebrating and reflecting on 50 years of research exploring the Baddeley & Hitch framework!

So come bring your latest innovative WM research data to the party!

Deadline for letters of intent: 15 September 2023
(planning a Registered Report? Then get in touch sooner to to start the ball rolling)

All the call details here:
https://mark-hurlstone.github.io/QJEP-Special-Issue/

johnntowse, to random
@johnntowse@mstdn.social avatar

“We welcome proposals to found new journals as well as proposals to transfer existing journals to PsychOpen GOLD (e.g., transforming a subscription based journal to an Open Access journal). Applications are invited from scientists and scholarly societies from all parts of the world.

PsychOpen GOLD journals are published completely free of charge for readers, authors, and editors or scholarly societies (Diamond Open Access)”

See details :
https://psychopen.eu/call2023/

MarkRubin, to random
@MarkRubin@fediscience.org avatar

@frasermacdonald sums up how a lot of us are feeling about UK higher education at the moment. 😔

https://twitter.com/JAFMacDonald/status/1661465939022430208

#UCURising
@ucu

johnntowse,
@johnntowse@mstdn.social avatar

@MarkRubin @frasermacdonald @ucu
How would that work in Psychology for example, where as you will know Mark, the British Psychology Society requires a threshold-level mark on the project in order for students to get GBC and an honours degree? Couldn't / wouldn't the BPS withdraw accreditation?

johnntowse, to random
@johnntowse@mstdn.social avatar

Lovely stone footpath sign near St James the Less church, Tatham

ct_bergstrom, (edited ) to random
@ct_bergstrom@fediscience.org avatar

This week, Science published a stunningly irresponsible news story entitled "Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common" and claiming that upward of 30% of the scientific literature is fake.

https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-papers-are-alarmingly-common

Below, the first two paragraphs of the story.

Headline and intro notwithstanding, the story itself later notes that the detector doesn't actually work and flags nearly half of real papers as fake. Does the reporter just not understand that?

h/t @Hoch

johnntowse,
@johnntowse@mstdn.social avatar

@ct_bergstrom
Isn't it weird how the paper seems to have no mention of ethical approval for this survey work (that I could see)?
I mean, after all, what ethical review process could possibly have concerns with researchers who threaten participants with having their papers retracted if they don't cooperate?

No harm of distress caused in the protocol there, obtaining consent must have been a breeze...

MarkRubin, to science
@MarkRubin@fediscience.org avatar

Open Science and Academic Workload

New article by Thomas Hostler in the Journal of Trial and Error:

“There is a high chance that without intervention, increased expectations to engage in open research practices may lead to unacceptable increases in demands on academics.”

Open access: https://doi.org/10.36850/mr5








@stsing
@academicchatter

johnntowse,
@johnntowse@mstdn.social avatar

@MarkRubin @academicchatter @tombeesley @robayedavies @stsing
Indeed. And exactly why we concluded in 2021: “Open data is a manageable albeit time consuming target, especially where thoughtful and careful curation takes place and issues of anonymity must be managed. The field should recognize the value, and the temporal and cognitive costs. whilst promoting the potential reward and benefits…”

https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01486-1

johnntowse,
@johnntowse@mstdn.social avatar

@robayedavies @stsing @tombeesley @academicchatter @MarkRubin
Plus, I think this perspective makes it all the more important that we embed open research into the degree curriculum so that we can broaden awareness and surface the consequences. Especially important perhaps for those beyond the immediate research questions but who can operate the levers of influence & support, those who issue mandates etc

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • megavids
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • osvaldo12
  • love
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • everett
  • kavyap
  • mdbf
  • DreamBathrooms
  • ngwrru68w68
  • provamag3
  • magazineikmin
  • InstantRegret
  • normalnudes
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • cisconetworking
  • Durango
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • tester
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines
    •