Tal Yarkoni on Twitter: "the irony is that funding such a thing would cost a tiny fraction of what we all currently pay publishers for essentially no value. I think the fact that we *don't* already have such institutions everywhere kind of gives away where our values really lie… https://t.co/z6lBw8lGgv"

Country	Code	For customers of
United States	40404	(any)
Canada	21212	(any)
United Kingdom	86444	Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
Brazil	40404	Nextel, TIM
Haiti	40404	Digicel, Voila
Ireland	51210	Vodafone, O2
India	53000	Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
Indonesia	89887	AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
Italy	4880804	Wind
3424486444	Vodafone
» See SMS short codes for other countries

Hannimal ‏ @hisotalus Jan 6

Replying to @RemiGau @fmrwhy and

Some. but for almost everything there is an obscure exception that is impossible to anticipate.

1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes

Remi Gau‏ @RemiGau Jan 6

Replying to @hisotalus @fmrwhy and

Yeah sure. But I am talking about things like. How many subjects? What was the voxel size? What software? What version?

2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes

Jeanette Mumford‏ @mumbrainstats Jan 6

Replying to @RemiGau @hisotalus and

If this was to be done there would need to be clear consequences. I imagine telling authors they forgot something on each of 2-3 rounds of review and it gets ignored and still passes review. Maybe score the importance of each item and they need to score above a certain level.

1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes

Tal Yarkoni‏ @talyarkoni Jan 6

Replying to @mumbrainstats @RemiGau and

a simple policy is that you have to answer every item or the paper doesn't get sent out fo or review. you can say "not applicable" for any question if you like; then you're on the record and the reviewers can evaluate your answers.

3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes

Russ Poldrack‏Verified account @russpoldrack Jan 6

Replying to @talyarkoni @mumbrainstats and

similar to the @NatureNeuro model...

2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes

Tal Yarkoni‏ @talyarkoni Jan 6

Replying to @russpoldrack @mumbrainstats and

yes. though the process would be more effective if reviewers and editors didn't treat it as just a formality. but for that, one would probably need to either pay reviewers or otherwise incentive good review, and that's probably not consistent with most prevailing business models

4 replies 0 retweets 6 likes

Chris Gorgolewski‏ @ChrisFiloG Jan 6

Replying to @talyarkoni @russpoldrack and

What about monetary bounties for finding statistical or reporting issues in published papers? Like bounties for fining security issues in software.

5 replies 1 retweet 12 likes

Tal Yarkoni‏ @talyarkoni Jan 6

Replying to @ChrisFiloG @russpoldrack and

oh, but that would be *mean*!

1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes

Tal Yarkoni‏ @talyarkoni Jan 6

Replying to @talyarkoni @ChrisFiloG and

but in all seriousness, I think the idea of a non-profit institute that basically employs people full-time to find errors in the published literature is an excellent one.

8 replies 10 retweets 52 likes

Chris Gorgolewski‏ @ChrisFiloG Jan 6

Replying to @talyarkoni @russpoldrack and

Great! All that remains is for someone to pay for it...

2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes

Tal Yarkoni‏ @talyarkoni Jan 6

Replying to @ChrisFiloG @russpoldrack and

the irony is that funding such a thing would cost a tiny fraction of what we all currently pay publishers for essentially no value. I think the fact that we *don't* already have such institutions everywhere kind of gives away where our values really lie

12:15 PM - 6 Jan 2019