Journal Club Winter Term 2016/17

Day, time & location:

During term time:
Tuesdays from 12:45 till 13:45 hrs, weekly
72076 Tübingen, Sand 6, room F230

Students can obtain 2 ECTS for the active participation in the Journal Club (non graded, only pass or fail). Active participation implies, first, that students have to present at least one paper during term. Second, they have to attend the Journal Club regularly: non-attendance will only be tolerated once per term (unless the student provides a doctor's note).

Finally, the number of participants at the Journal Club is strictly limited to 10, and members of the NIP lab take precedence over external students. Thus in practice there is a limit of 2, 3 or maximally 4 external students per term, depending on the number of current NIP lab members.

"Everything is fucked"
This term's journal club is following a theme with a somewhat crass title, following the lead of a faux syllabus by Sanjay Srivastava. Inspiration was also provided by a real course offered by Lee Jussim at Rutgers and a workshop of mine from 2013: Together with Frank Jäkel and Jakob Macke I had organised a one week long workshop for the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes on "Data interpretation in cognitive neuroscience – messages from data or massaging data?"

18.10.2016 Felix Wichmann"Introduction to everything is fucked"
– Discussion of the Journal Club format; assignment and distribution of papers (password for ILIAS).
25.10.2016no journal club



Bernhard Lang

Tom Wallis

David Janssen

"Significance testing is fucked"

- Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304-1312. (Lang)

- Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Verhagen, J., Province, J. M., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2016). Is there a free lunch in inference? Topics in Cognitive Science, 8, 520-547. (Wallis)

- Bakker et al. (2012). The Rules of the Game Called Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6):543-54. (Janssen)


Robert Geirhos

Nathasja Franke

Tom Wallis

"Statistical flexibility fucks us up"

- John et al. (2012). Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling. Psychological Science, 23(5):524-32.(Geirhos)

- Simmons et al. (2011). False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant. Psychological Science, 22(11) 1359–1366. (Franke)

- Ioannidis et al. (2014). Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(5), 235–241. (Wallis)


Uli Wannek

Robert Geirhos

Johanna Salu

"fMRI analyses are fucked"

- Eklund et al. (2016). Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. PNAS, 113(28):7900-5. (Wannek)

- Kriegeskorte et al. "Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: the dangers of double dipping." Nature Neuroscience, 12.5 (2009): 535-540. (Geirhos)

- Lages, Martin, and Katarzyna Jaworska. (2012) "How predictable are spontaneous decisions and hidden intentions? Comparing classification results based on previous responses with multivariate pattern analysis of fMRI BOLD signals." Frontiers in Psychology, 3:56. (Salu)


Kirsten Torge

Heiko Schütt

David Janssen

"... but so are advanced methods and meta-analysis"

- Fiedler (2011). Voodoo Correlations Are Everywhere – Not Only in Neuroscience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(2) 163–171. (Torge)

- van Elk et al. (2015). Meta-analyses are no substitute for registered replications: a skeptical perspective on religious priming. Frontiers in Psychology, 6:1365 (Schütt)

- Lazer et al. (2014). The Parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big Data Analysis. Science, 343, 1203-05. (Janssen)


Nathasja Franke

Kirsten Torge

"Replicability is fucked"

- Earp & Trafimow (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6:621 (Franke)

- Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. (Torge)

- The truth wears off


Volker Franz

Merve Kaptan

"Interlude: Everything is fine, calm the fuck down"

- Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean? American Psychologist, 70, 487-498. (Franz)

- Psychology is not in crisis?
- Pashler & Harris (2016). Is the Replicability Crisis Overblown? Three Arguments Examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6) 531–536 (Kaptan)


Hilola Hakimova

Heiko Schütt

"Scientific publishing is fucked"

- Fanelli, D. (2011). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90, 891-904. (Hakimova)

- Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2, e124. (Schütt)

- How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science


Johanna Salu

Felix Wichmann

"The scientific profession is fucked"

- Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 615-631. (Salu)

- Merton (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science. Science, 159(3810): 56-63. (Wichmann)

- Scientists, not editors, are distorting science publishing

- Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
- The 9 Circles of Scientific Hell
- Reckoning with the Past


- today at
12:00 !!! -

Felix Wichman

Hilola Hakimova

Uli Wannek

Merve Kaptan

David Janssen

Felix Wichmann

"What the fuck should we do?"

- Discussion on what should be done, and what you yourself should do as a student, a non-tenured researcher or a professor.

- Geman & Geman (2016). Science in the age of selfies. PNAS, 113(34), 9384–9387. (Wichmann)

- Marder, E., Kettenmann, H. and Grillner (2010). Impacting our young. PNAS, 107(50), 21233. (Hakimova)

- Oettl, A. (2012). Honour the helpful. Nature, 489: 496-497. (Wannek)

- Alberts (2013). Impact Factor Distortions. Science, 340, 787. (Kaptan)

- Biagioli (2015). Watch out for cheats in citation game. Nature, 535, 201. (Janssen)

- Himmelstein et al. (2014). Pay-for-Performance: Toxic to Quality? Insights from Behavioral Economics. International Journal of Health Services, 44(2):203-14. (Wichmann)

- A fascinating experiment into measuring dishonesty.
- How our current reward structures have distorted and damaged science