Love methods papers where the authors cover an estimator’s properties in painstaking detail, then add a footnote:
“We assume X, Y, Z, which are unrealistic, but relaxing them is too complex”
Thanks. I suppose it’s up to us applied researchers to deal with those gaps then?
I hope this is satire, but considering everything we're seeing in research, this feels more like an ominous preview
If only...
Opened Bluesky for some USA vs Canada hockey banter.
Everyone’s discussing R pipes. 😑
We are not ready for the next generation of research misconduct.
"Our proprietary AI robots independently recreate any open source project from scratch. The result? Legally distinct code with corporate-friendly licensing. No attribution. No copyleft."
malus.sh
No one:
Absolutely no one:
Billion-dollar publisher in 2026:
“We published the wrong version so our only option is to issue a retraction under your name”
Someone must've done a systematic review on whether methodologists follow their own advice?
Methodologists' theoretical papers: "you MUST do X or your estimates are meaningless."
Methodologists' empirical papers: [does not do X]
Kristoffer Magnusson
Kristoffer Magnusson
Kristoffer Magnusson
Kristoffer Magnusson
Kristoffer Magnusson
Kristoffer Magnusson
Kristoffer Magnusson
Kristoffer Magnusson
Kristoffer Magnusson
I've made an R package for Bayesian Rasch #psychometrics with brms models, easyRaschBayes (on CRAN), implementing simple functions to create figures and tables with model fit metrics, etc. Attaching figures from conditional item infit, item-restscore with GK gamma, and the log-likelihood criterion.
