Kevin J. Black @kjbinstl@qoto.org

Excited to share our pioneer pilot crossover #RCT testing arketamine for treatment-resistant #depression (TRD). Racemic #ketamine is a mixture of #arketamine and #esketamine. Preclinical data and one open-label human trial suggest arketamine might exert a more potent and longer-lasting #antidepressant effect with fewer side effects. However, arketamine was not superior to #placebo for #TRD in our study.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2023.02.151

#Psychiatry #ClinicalTrials #Fediscience #PsychMastodon

But, most rigor enhancing behaviors directly affect the evidence, and the "inevitable" trade-off does not occur. In fact, if the behavioral interventions work as intended, they should decrease both false positives AND false negatives by increasing the quality of evidence.

Publication bias revealed: mandatory trial registration grammatically cuts proportion of positive results

from Likelihood of Null Effects of Large NHLBI Clinical Trials Has Increased over Time https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132382 a 2015 classic

10 years after we created Registered Reports, the thing critics assured us would never (in a million years) happen has happened: @Nature is offering them.

The Registered Reports initiative just went up a gear and we are one step closer to eradicating publication bias and reporting bias from science.

Congratulations to all involved in achieving this milestone.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00506-2

Nature, like many journals, has historically emphasized producing exciting, innovative outcomes as the basis for publication. Incentivizing researchers for rewards based on outcomes is a key contributor to many of the dysfunctional practices that the reform movement aims to address. Nature's adoption of Registered Reports is a powerful signal for the real opportunity to change the reward system. Culture change is a grind, but it is grinding on.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00506-2.

Mastodon: a move to publicly owned scholarly knowledge
#academia #science #twitter #mastodon #AcademicMastodon
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00486-3

Many scholars are leaving Twitter for #Mastodon, a public, decentralized alternative, impervious to private take-over:

https://www.science.org/content/article/musk-reshapes-twitter-academics-ponder-taking-flight

Scholarly organizations are already supporting this migration:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00486-3

and

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7643817

There are analogous solutions for another public good in private hands: journals. There are even levers the scholarly community could pull to incentivize an analogous migration:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5526634

What are we waiting for?

I can't think of a time that I have ever used the "confidential remarks to editors" field in journal reviews until recently. I now use that section to comment on their journal policies and tell them how to implement open science best practices AKA topfactor.org

It's here! "A Student's Guide to Open Science" has landed on my doorstep. A perfectly sized pocket guide to the replication crisis and #openscience reform. I am so proud of what this book represents ✨

A brief overview...🧵

https://t.co/oM1gwYkXDk

@PeerCommunityIn cied as one potential solution for the problem of lack of peer reviewers, since this #openaccess initiative proposés pre-publication peer-review of #preprints and therefore to stop the submit/review/refuse/resubmit/re-review path https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00403-8

Incredible story. Incredible reporting. https://stanforddaily.com/2023/02/17/internal-review-found-falsified-data-in-stanford-presidents-alzheimers-research-colleagues-allege/

Research is published via PDF prisons, which discourages self-correction.

Adam Kane and @Bawan propose a solution: "Authors would include a link in their published manuscripts to an updatable website (e.g. a GitHub repository) that could be disseminated in the event of any amendment [...] This would remove a number of frictions that discourage amendments leading to an improved scientific literature and a healthier academic climate."

via https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2022.0463
@academicchatter #OpenScience