Christel Hellberg
LightNews LightNews
banner
christelh.bsky.social
Christel Hellberg
@christelh.bsky.social
500 followers 880 following 77 posts
Interested in systematic reviews and other types of evidence synthesis as well as evidence based research. PhD in medicine.
Intresserad av systematiska översikter och annan typ av forskningssammanställningar.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
rcsipophealth.bsky.social
A user-friendly tool for anyone conducting an evidence synthesis project has been launched by Knowledge Translation Program @ktprogram.bsky.social. The Right Review Tool has been updated in collab w/ Dr Barbara Clyne.

rightreview.knowledgetranslation.net

@hiqa.bsky.social @rcsilibrary.bsky.social
December 4, 2025 at 9:26 AM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
smutclyde.bsky.social
This is *not* how to plagiarise text by asking Chat-GPT to paraphrase it.
November 10, 2025 at 9:33 AM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
asanchez-tojar.bsky.social
Thanks to everyone who reached out via DM. I really appreciate your help 🙏

If you have any examples (even anecdotal) of articles published in eco/evo journals where supplementary materials are no longer available, please share them with me. We’re trying to gather preliminary data on this issue.
asanchez-tojar.bsky.social Alfredo Sánchez-Tójar @asanchez-tojar.bsky.social · 1d
📣 Quick question for the community: I remember hearing about instances where journals updated their websites and accidentally lost or misplaced supplementary materials in the process.

Does anyone recall specific cases or have references? Trying to track this down! 🙏 #OpenScience #Reproducibility
December 4, 2025 at 9:25 AM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
abalkina.bsky.social
Happy Advent! !!!🎄✨
Day 4.
Today's puzzle is about new cases and the phenomenon of problematic papers.
papermills.tilda.ws/advent2025
December 4, 2025 at 6:43 AM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
error.reviews
Many error remain to be found in clinical trials. Patients deserve reliable results. Kudos to these authors for their persistent work to correct the record.
ianhussey.mmmdata.io Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 6d
"In 2019 we notified journals about serious integrity concerns in 172 clinical trials. Over five years later, only 22 have been retracted. The 135 unretracted trials have 1989 citations in systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, and consensus statements"

[paraphrased]
www.bmj.com/content/390/...
December 2, 2025 at 10:12 AM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
katjathieme.bsky.social
„Damià Barceló is a hyper-prolific scientist, who publishes a new study every five days or even less. He has authored some 1,800 papers in his lifetime, more than 200 of them in Science of the Total Environment, his own journal. His name appears numerous times as editor of his own studies.“
The fall of a prolific science journal exposes the billion-dollar profits of scientific publishing
One of the 15 publications that put out the most studies globally has been expelled from the indexing system for irregularities. Its publisher, Elsevier, has a 38% profit margin that reached $1.5 bill...
english.elpais.com
December 2, 2025 at 11:35 AM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
jmwleeds.bsky.social
Want to develop your #EvidenceSynthesis skills or literature searching? Places still available on our online courses - come and join us!
jmwleeds.bsky.social Judy Wright @jmwleeds.bsky.social · Nov 3
Book Now! #MixedMethods #SystematicReview online courses, Mar 2026 bit.ly/2QbD1DV
Live interactive sessions, pre-recorded lectures & workbooks by experts. When & how to integrate data for complex ques
#LitSearch & EndNote @katysutcliffe.bsky.social @eppicentre.bsky.social @auhe-leeds.bsky.social
Leeds Mixed Method Systematic Review Online Courses
medicinehealth.leeds.ac.uk
December 2, 2025 at 10:21 AM
christelh.bsky.social
Varje dag publiceras ett nytt fall som belyser problem och inkonsekvenser i akademiska artiklar och vetenskapliga tidskrifter. Din uppgift? Att hitta felet!

Som ett exempel lägger jag in Lucka 1: Ser du något som verkar inkonsekvent eller misstänkt i dessa sammanfattande statistikuppgifter?
Bild på baslinjedata i en forskningsstude. Värden för mean, sd, range, min och max presenteras.
December 2, 2025 at 8:08 AM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
abalkina.bsky.social
Happy Advent! !!!🎄✨
Welcome to a new edition of the Research Integrity Advent Calendar.
Each day brings a small challenge: spot the problem, detect inconsistencies, and sharpen your skills.
Enjoy the season and the daily puzzles!
Day 1. papermills.tilda.ws/advent2025
December 1, 2025 at 8:07 PM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
hansonmark.bsky.social
In general, let's just stop paying companies that host this BS.

Fight the drain of scientific publishing.

arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
An infographic describing the drain of scientific publishing
November 28, 2025 at 7:32 AM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
grahamkendall.bsky.social
More than 200 Korean papers retracted over AI use www.donga.com/en/article/a...
More than 200 Korean papers retracted over AI use
More than 200 academic papers in South Korea have been retracted over suspicions that artificial in…
www.donga.com
November 22, 2025 at 11:53 PM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
cghlewis.bsky.social
Yes, ChatGPT can help you write #rstats code, but so can this old Wiki I created with example code used for common data wrangling needs. Who knows, you might find some gems in there.🤷‍♀️

github.com/Cghlewis/dat...
Home
Functions used for wrangling education research data - Cghlewis/data-wrangling-functions
github.com
November 20, 2025 at 3:18 PM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
dsquintana.bsky.social
Our paper on improving statistical reporting in psychology is now online 🎉

As a part of this paper, we also created the Transparent Statistical Reporting in Psychology checklist, which researchers can use to improve their statistical reporting practices

www.nature.com/articles/s44...
Transparent and comprehensive statistical reporting is critical for ensuring the credibility, reproducibility, and interpretability of psychological research. This paper offers a structured set of guidelines for reporting statistical analyses in quantitative psychology, emphasizing clarity at both the planning and results stages. Drawing on established recommendations and emerging best practices, we outline key decisions related to hypothesis formulation, sample size justification, preregistration, outlier and missing data handling, statistical model specification, and the interpretation of inferential outcomes. We address considerations across frequentist and Bayesian frameworks and fixed as well as sequential research designs, including guidance on effect size reporting, equivalence testing, and the appropriate treatment of null results. To facilitate implementation of these recommendations, we provide the Transparent Statistical Reporting in Psychology (TSRP) Checklist that researchers can use to systematically evaluate and improve their statistical reporting practices (https://osf.io/t2zpq/). In addition, we provide a curated list of freely available tools, packages, and functions that researchers can use to implement transparent reporting practices in their own analyses to bridge the gap between theory and practice. To illustrate the practical application of these principles, we provide a side-by-side comparison of insufficient versus best-practice reporting using a hypothetical cognitive psychology study. By adopting transparent reporting standards, researchers can improve the robustness of individual studies and facilitate cumulative scientific progress through more reliable meta-analyses and research syntheses.
November 14, 2025 at 8:43 PM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
carolinearmitage.bsky.social
A really great set of 3 papers for anyone wanting to get to grips with systemic issues in scientific publishing in a concise and data-supported way!
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 22d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 13, 2025 at 8:40 AM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
fiaewald.se
Ett av våra mest lyssnade avsnitt är det med just Lena Marcusson som pratar om sin utredning av SKR.
soupodden.podbean.com/e/staten-och...
”Staten och kommunsektorn – samverkan, självstyrelse, styrning” SOU 2024:43 | SOU-podden
Professor emeritus Lena Marcusson har utrett statens former för samverkan och dialog med kommuner och regioner. Ett tydligt uppdrag kan man tycka tills man inser den enorma komplexitet som det svårfån...
soupodden.podbean.com
November 13, 2025 at 7:21 AM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
uttranemma.bsky.social
Lärare, vi vill att ni berättar!

www.vilarare.se/nyheter/skol...
Riksrevisionens kritik: Svagt stöd för vetenskaplig grund
Att som lärare förlita sig på stödmaterial från Skolverket, SPSM och Skolforskningsinstitutet kan innebära risker. Riksrevisionen riktar hård kritik mot skolmyndigheterna i en ny granskning, där de sk...
www.vilarare.se
November 13, 2025 at 7:06 AM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
farhadshokraneh.bsky.social
Probably my best but definitely my last webinar of 2025, I promise 🤞 I know you are fed up, but the recording is chaptered 🎊

www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4xw...

@htaiorg.bsky.social

#HTA #AI #HEOR #GenAI #LLM #SystematicReviews #EvidenceSynthesis
Responsible Use of AI in Evidence Synthesis: Filling the Gap Between Research and Practice
YouTube video by Farhad Shokraneh
www.youtube.com
November 9, 2025 at 8:15 PM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
jbiebhc.bsky.social
JBI critical appraisal tools assist in assessing the trustworthiness, relevance and results of published papers.

Go to our website for 15 checklists: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
Screenshot of JBI webpage displaying: CRITICAL APPRAISAL TOOLS Links to published papers Link to Critical Appraisal video for JBI SUMARI
November 7, 2025 at 5:45 AM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
marijanewhite.bsky.social
Hey #medlibs, I built a tool for making it easier to create proximity search strings in PubMed. Check it out!

I presented at PNC-MLA this afternoon and will follow up with a link to the recording when it's posted.
Pairwise PubMed Search Generator
The Pairwise PubMed Search Generator is a web application for working around the truncation limit...
pairwise-pubmed.streamlit.app
November 6, 2025 at 11:32 PM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
smutclyde.bsky.social
One of the first papermills was 'MedChina' - a Dr Jia-Li Liu - following a template to churn out fake meta-analysis papers.
forbetterscience.com/2022/06/07/t...

12 years too late, the editors of Gene finally got around to checking the .doc metadata of the manuscript.
pubpeer.com/publications...
November 6, 2025 at 4:16 AM
christelh.bsky.social
Happy halloween 🎃
October 31, 2025 at 6:04 PM
christelh.bsky.social
This is a image from a swedish pharmacy add. I have some questions….
October 27, 2025 at 5:55 PM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
alexh.bsky.social
MetaROR, a platform for reviews of research on research, is a success! We have published 24 sets of reviews and have 16 submissions in process. MetaROR now has 9 partners - these are journals that agree to use our reviews when authors submit to them. metaror.org #metascience #openaccess
Home - MetaROR
MetaResearch Open Review MetaResearch Open Review MetaResearch Open Review A new platform designed to transform how we review and share metaresearch A new platform designed to transform
metaror.org
October 26, 2025 at 10:33 PM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
europepmc.org
Looking to make your license more restrictive to stop AI from using your research?

STOP!
Restrictive licenses don’t block AI, but block the community from accessing and building on your work.

Learn more below 👇
@creativecommons.bsky.social
#OAweek #AcademicChatter #PhDsky 🧪
europepmc.org Europe PMC @europepmc.org · Jul 15
Missed our webinar on the use of CC-BY for research and AI? We covered:
- What are Creative Commons licenses
- Why some funders mandate CC-BY
- How @ebi.embl.org databases innovate with CC-BY
- How CC-BY impacts AI training

Catch up here: youtu.be/vr6vFqo8xKg
@creativecommons.bsky.social
What happens when you choose closed. What Creative Commons licenses mean for research and AI.
YouTube video by EuropePMC
youtu.be
October 22, 2025 at 10:23 AM
Reposted by Christel Hellberg
jacobgudiol.traningslara.se
Även om du inte är intresserad av frågan i sig så är det här bra information kring hur du upptäcker pseudovetenskap idag.
traningslara.se/korkade-grej...
Korkade grejer antivaxxare säger - vaccinen räddade inga liv!
För några dagar sedan lade jag upp en video där jag förklarade varför ett uttalande från Martin Kulldorff i Agenda var lika oärligt som att påstå att vi inte har data som visar att rökning är skadligt...
traningslara.se
October 21, 2025 at 6:50 AM