
Fan of truth & freedom. Founder of @IGDOREinstitute, now cheering from the sidelines. PhD in Psychology (forensic). Investigative journalist in training.
Sweden
Joined July 2017
- Tweets3.1K
- Following1K
- Followers1.2K
- Likes13.1K
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
“‘Academic cancel culture hurting scientific credibility,’” says Steven Pinker.
timeshighereducation.com/new…
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
I am stepping in as chair of IGDORE Sweden. Looking forward to taking IGDORE Sweden into the future together with affiliates and staff! My deepest thanks to outgoing chair Rebecca Willén for all she has done in founding the organization and building it to where it is today.
June News from IGDORE - mailchi.mp/b4ef699c967f/igdo…
Read about Carl Salk who left the university system for freer research – and meet IGDORE Sweden's new Board Chair.
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
Lancet Psychiatry now requiring manuscripts to acknowledge lack of lived experience as a limitation if absent (which means pressure to reveal lived experience). This is not a good development imo.
thelancet.com/journals/lanps…
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
📢 Call for nominations for the Open Criminology Award.
Deadline: 1st July 2025
More info: esc-enoc.github.io/open-crim…
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
Last year, $9B of the $35B that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) granted for research was used for administrative overhead, what is known as “indirect costs.” Today, NIH lowered the maximum indirect cost rate research institutions can charge the government to 15%, above what many major foundations allow and much lower than the 60%+ that some institutions charge the government today. This change will save more than $4B a year effective immediately.
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
Work-related stress and mental health are growing challenges in the research community. The ReACT project is an initiative that aims to improve researchers’ mental health and work environment by creating a self-help program. sweden.igdore.org/react/
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
🚀 We're excited to announce ReACT (Researchers’ act: training for psychological flexibility and work-related stress management), a three-year project (2024-2027) under Erasmus+, funded by the European Commission.
🌍 The mission? To improve the well-being and mental health of researchers by creating a web-based psychoeducational program.
The project is a collaboration between:
University of Bucharest, Romania 🇷🇴
Anadolu University, Turkey 🇹🇷
Polytechnic Institute of Porto, Portugal 🇵🇹
IGDORE Sweden, Sweden 🇸🇪
Berdyansk State Pedagogical University, Ukraine 🇺🇦
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
To register: sweden.cochrane.org/
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
📢 See you today, Wednesday, at 15:15 &/or 16:00 (CET), for ReproTea journal club & #openscience coffee! ☕️ Everyone's welcome!
Want to drop by but haven't registered? No problem, just complete the registration form below & give us 10 min to email you the link. Join us! 👋
Soon Wednesday, soon ReproducibiliTea and OSCoffee! 🥳
Journal club at 3:15pm and virtual coffee at 4pm CET! This week, we’re discussing the seminal article: Ioannidis (2005) “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”
More info and sign up at:
onscienceandacademia.org/t/i…
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
Not gonna lie, chitchatting on zoom about open science with researchers from all around the world is slowly becoming one of my favorite pastimes 🤩
Sign up through the form and join in on the fun!
Soon Wednesday, soon ReproducibiliTea and OSCoffee! 🥳
Journal club at 3:15pm and virtual coffee at 4pm CET! This week, we’re discussing the seminal article: Ioannidis (2005) “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”
More info and sign up at:
onscienceandacademia.org/t/i…
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
THE CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS TO SIPS 2025 IS NOW OPEN! To submit your session, please visit the designated online submission portal: ONLINE SIPS 2025 pretalx.com/sips2025-online/ & IN-PERSON SIPS 2025 pretalx.com/sips2025-budapes….
Hosts: @BalazsAczel @improvingpsych
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
November News from IGDORE - mailchi.mp/36a0490bf769/igdo… - Join the next IGDORE ReproducibiliTea Journal Club on December 11th!
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
Sometimes I think that we have made progress in academia, but then I see posts like this. We have a long way to go.
For those unfamiliar with academic practices, blind review is a cornerstone of scholarly integrity. It ensures that reviewers can objectively evaluate a paper without being influenced by the identity of its authors, maintaining the fairness and impartiality of the process.
By publicly posting their paper on social media while it was under consideration by a Canadian B-level journal, Trevor Tombe and Jennifer Winter crossed an important ethical line, one that many academics regard as sacrosanct. Such actions undermine the blind review process. Given the paper’s wide public availability, it is highly likely that current reviewers could now identify the authors, even if the journal itself does not explicitly prohibit such behaviour.
The timing of this campaign is particularly revealing. The paper was made public on the same day our second paper was published in a top-tier journal. This suggests an intentional effort to amplify their work and influence its acceptance by mobilizing like-minded academics—such as Andrew Leach and Kent Fellows—to promote it online.
Such behaviour is fundamentally unethical. It compromises the integrity of the peer-review process and blurs the line between scholarship and propaganda. Canadians deserve transparency in academic research, and they should know when these ethical boundaries are crossed. This isn’t just poor practice—it’s a violation of trust.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
It is common for economics articles to first be shown as working papers. SSRN, online since 1994, hosts 1.4M papers, with 207,200 added in the last year.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/DisplayAb…
WP are often published later, like this one by Charlebois and al., posted in March, then officially published in April.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
mdpi.com/2304-8158/13/9…
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
Redaktörens rader: "Vem får en polis vara nära? Var går gränsen för vem man inte kan ha i sitt liv? Och vem blir den som i yrkets namn väljer bort."
polistidningen.se/2024/10/ve…
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
🚨Reminder🚨
Our ReproducibiliTea and Open Science Coffee is happening again today!
Come join us discussing an amazing paper by @siminevazire (2017) at 3:15 pm CET or drop by for just a coffee and a chat at 4 pm CET!
Sign up and more info:
onscienceandacademia.org/t/i…
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
To all who joined, thank you for a great introductory session of ReproducibiliTea and Open Science Coffee! ☕️
📣 We are still open for more to join! 📣
Sign up for the bi-weekly journal club or just the Open Science Coffee here: onscienceandacademia.org/t/i…
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
🚨 Today’s the day! @ReproducibiliT journal club & Open Science Coffee start today (Nov 13th)! 🎉
📰 ReproTea: 15:15-16:00 CET
☕️ OS Coffee: 16:00-16:30 CET
We already have a great group signed up, but there’s still time to join!
More info & sign up:
onscienceandacademia.org/t/i…
🚨 Exciting news! We're launching remote @ReproducibiliT journal club sessions followed by Open Science Coffees every second Wednesday, starting Nov 13th!
📰 ReproTea: 15:15-16:00 CET
☕️ OS Coffee: 16:00-16:30 CET
Everyone's welcome! More info next week!
Questions? 💬 @n_hyltse
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
"We found that the reported use of open science practices in leading [criminology and criminal justice] journals is low, especially for pre-registration and open code, and that their reported use does not seem to be increasing over time."
link.springer.com/article/10…
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
I think most academics make a wrong cost-benefit analysis when deciding to publish their work as a book vs putting it online yourself for free. I predict that putting it online yourself will on average lead to higher returns on any metric you care about (prestige, money, impact).
Rebecca Willén 🦕 retweeted
It is extremely sad to see some qualitative resesrchers take the epistemologicl view that truth is crested, and qualitative resesrch is in principle not replicable. These voices should be severely criticized within the qualitative research community, and preferably driven out.
This Post is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
























