Hans-Christoph Nuerk
LightNews LightNews
banner
tuebang.bsky.social
Hans-Christoph Nuerk
@tuebang.bsky.social
300 followers 190 following 44 posts
Tuebingen Brain And Number Group: (Neuro-)cognitive foundations, development, diagnostics, intervention, education of arithmetic & language; no official account
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
affectscience.bsky.social
Affective science has lost an extraordinary member of our community: Dr. Paul Ekman, who passed peacefully at home at the age of 91 on Monday. Dr. Ekman's pioneering cross-cultural research on the interpretation of facial expressions in emotional terms...(1)
November 20, 2025 at 12:20 AM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
benjaminjriley.bsky.social
Why not an early morning thread using this data to explore the concept of "identity-protective cognition," and why understanding how it operates may be vital to understanding the role of misinformation in our digital age? This will get two likes, surely, but here goes...
elizabethjacobs.bsky.social Elizabeth Jacobs, PhD @elizabethjacobs.bsky.social · 5d
A horrifying graphic from Pew showing the fruits of the right wing war on public health.

Only 48% of Republicans believe that vaccines prevent serious illness, while 80% of Democrats do.

This is not a difference of opinion in science. This is the result of a ruthless disinformation campaign.
Graphic showing that only 48% of Republicans believe that vaccines are safe and effective, while 80% of Democrats do; that only 35% of republicans think vaccines are tested for safety, while 74% of Democrats do; and that only 32% of Republicans think the childhood vaccine schedule is safe, while 71% of democrats do.
November 21, 2025 at 12:12 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca
We summarized the Drain paper in an LSE Impact blog post this week. Please share in your networks, ideally with those we are calling to action: research funders and university leadership
blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsoci... #AcademicSky #AcademicPublishing #OpenAccess #ScholComm
November 20, 2025 at 6:14 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
odedrechavi.bsky.social
AI Statistics
November 20, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
lorenzo-ciccione.bsky.social
Check our new paper out! 🤓
cognitionjournal.bsky.social Cognition @cognitionjournal.bsky.social · 6d
How early do children grasp mathematical patterns? In a new Cognition paper, Ciccione et al. show that 5–6-year-olds can intuitively extend lines, curves and oscillating patterns, revealing rich proto-mathematical intuitions before schooling.
November 20, 2025 at 5:21 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
vferrera.bsky.social
An unusual amount of empty poster boards at SFN 2025
November 19, 2025 at 6:09 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
odedrechavi.bsky.social
Presubmission inquiry
November 18, 2025 at 5:32 AM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
alexh.bsky.social
Lisa Bero with shocking admission of how the sponsor was involved in their studies. #AIMOS2025
But almost all article sponsor involvement says they werent involved, should ask her if these authors also wrote that in their articles. #metascience
November 18, 2025 at 11:36 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
peaseroland.bsky.social
The numbers in here are huge, ~$2.5bn in profits (~35% profit margin) to 4 major academic publishing houses.
How much lost research expenditure does that equate to??
Windfall tax, anyone?
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 15d
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 14, 2025 at 3:29 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
profsimonfisher.bsky.social
Advances in genomics are giving exciting new perspectives on biology of speech, language & reading. My latest peer-reviewed paper is a tutorial, guiding readers from different backgrounds through the history of the field, current state-of-the-art, & where we’re heading. A taster in this thread.🧪
1/n
Genomic Investigations of Spoken and Written Language Abilities: A Guide to Advances in Approaches, Technologies, and Discovery
Purpose: The aim of this tutorial is to show how the rise of molecular technologies and analytical methods in human genetics yields exciting new ...
pubs.asha.org
November 17, 2025 at 5:54 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
profsimonfisher.bsky.social
In recent years, well-powered genome scans related to speech, language & reading skills became feasible, in part via team science approaches that harmonize data across multiple cohorts, exemplified by this GenLang Consortium study of common DNA variants & psychometric measures in <34,000 people. 9/n
Genome-wide analyses of individual differences in quantitatively assessed reading- and language-related skills in up to 34,000 people | PNAS
The use of spoken and written language is a fundamental human capacity. Individual differences in reading- and language-related skills are influenc...
www.pnas.org
November 17, 2025 at 7:57 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
lakens.bsky.social
I have seen the same people criticize preregistration, based on highly unlikely hypotheses about why they would not be needed, or even counterproductive. Literally *none* of these critics have provided any empirical support for their criticism in the last decade. I wonder why.
November 17, 2025 at 12:56 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
drgbuckingham.bsky.social
November 16, 2025 at 8:14 PM
tuebang.bsky.social
Headed by our wonderful PostDoc Maristella Lunardon in cooperation with Christina Artemenko, @serenarossi.bsky.social and @krzysztofcipora.bsky.social we observed that math attitudes were more important for university choice than math anxiety.

nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirec...
nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com
November 15, 2025 at 11:58 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
krajcsi.bsky.social
The SNARC effect may work only with symbolic numbers. It seems to work with nonsymbolic numbers when the task requires symbolic responses, such as "smaller"-"larger", but not without them. doi.org/10.1037/xhp0... or www.thenumberworks.org/discrete_sem...
October 29, 2025 at 9:45 AM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
flavinska.bsky.social
Hello #tRNS lovers: 🧠

Ó Dúinín, E., Steopan J., Kessler, K., Santos, FH. Sci Rep 15, 37977 (2025)

🎯 rdcu.be/eNuQT

@mcls-official.bsky.social
@mclstrainee.bsky.social
@ioe.bsky.social @ucl-ioe-phd.bsky.social
#neuroskyence #cogsci #edusky #devpsy

Sponsored by @ucddublin.bsky.social
Ad Astra
front page of the article, journal, title, authors, URL. Effects on nonverbal numerical acuity performance after a single-session transient random noise stimulation over the intraparietal sulcus or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
October 31, 2025 at 11:45 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
simine.com
If you’re an author, reviewer, or editor and want to learn about Registered Reports from one of the best editors around, go to this webinar!

Nov 19th at 8am Pacific US, 11am Eastern US, 5pm Central Europe (3am Nov 20th for the diehard Australians)
dsbarra.bsky.social David A. Sbarra @dsbarra.bsky.social · 15d
Sage webinar on Registered Reports (RRs/RRRs)! I'm excited to participate, and if you have any curiosity about writing a RR or reviewing a RR, please consider joining the webinar. Spread the word-- thanks! @psychscience.bsky.social
journals.sagepub.com Sage Journals @journals.sagepub.com · 15d
📢 Join our upcoming Registered Reports webinar!

Don't miss out on this opportunity to enhance your research! We will cover the following topics:
- Two-stage review explained
- Tips for Stage 1 protocols
- Common author challenges

Register now: https://ow.ly/R6yH50Xptt0 #RegisteredReports #Webinar
November 12, 2025 at 8:45 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
matti.vuorre.com
~40% of psyarxiv preprints contain links to open data in 2025 vs (e.g.) ~10% in 2019 (although in the latter case people mostly did not report this metadata): vuorre.com/psyarxiv-das...
November 12, 2025 at 2:50 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
janlause.bsky.social
🚨 PhD opportunity at the new @hertie-ai.bsky.social in Tuebingen, Germany!

🤖🧠📊 If you are interested in machine learning and visualization for clinical and brain research data, this is the perfect place to start!

See next skeet for some of the nice AI/ML/Neuro things we have in Tuebingen!

1/3
sdamrich.bsky.social Sebastian Damrich @sdamrich.bsky.social · 13d
🎓 We're hiring two PhD students in #MachineLearning for my new group at the Hertie Institute for AI in Brain Health, University of Tübingen!

Work on unsupervised learning, #DeepLearning, and #Neuroscience in a vibrant research environment.

👇 Details below
November 13, 2025 at 10:24 AM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
profsimonfisher.bsky.social
With sequencing of Hitler's DNA making headlines, time for a reminder: analysing a polygenic score from a dead historically-significant figure won't give new insights into that person's behaviour. In a brief paper last year, we used Beethoven's genome to directly illustrate the fallacies involved.🧪👇
Notes from Beethoven’s genome
Wesseldijk et al. compare the genomic information collected from Ludwig van Beethoven with population-based datasets used to quantify musical achievement.
www.cell.com
November 13, 2025 at 11:26 AM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
xphilosopher.bsky.social
There’s growing evidence that something was going seriously wrong in the classic early work on cognitive dissonance

Latest revelation: The story in When Prophecy Fails seems to have been fabricated in the most egregious way

But this is not the only one…

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...
Debunking “When Prophecy Fails”
In 1954, Dorothy Martin predicted an apocalyptic flood and promised her followers rescue by flying saucers. When neither arrived, she recanted, her group dissolved, and efforts to proselytize ceased....
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
November 6, 2025 at 2:06 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
xphilosopher.bsky.social
Results from the most well-known dissonance experiment are mathematically impossible @steamtraen.eu

(To get the intuition behind this analysis, imagine that we take the mean of 10 Likert scale scores. The mean could be 4.20 but not 4.25)

mattiheino.com/2016/11/13/l...
November 6, 2025 at 2:07 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
edtechprof.bsky.social
Our new meta-analysis by Sabrina Shajeen Alam, Jie Gao, reviews 24 studies on digital math tools for K–12 students with math learning disabilities.

Results show where digital tools help—and where big evidence gaps remain.

tlclab.owlstown.net/posts/4749-n...
TLC Lab - New Article Alert: Alam, Gao, & Dubé Publish a Systematic
We’re thrilled to share that our latest article, “A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Digital Mathematics Interventions for K-12 Students with Mathemati...
tlclab.owlstown.net
November 13, 2025 at 7:24 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk 🎤

If you’ve read this far and still need convincing, please check out our preprint arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820 and this infographic: doi.org/10.5281/zeno...
10/10
The four-fold drain of scientific publishing: Money, Time, Trust, and Control.
November 13, 2025 at 8:17 PM
Reposted by Hans-Christoph Nuerk
odedrechavi.bsky.social
People in the audience looking at the y-axis labels
November 14, 2025 at 7:21 AM