Journal of Trial and Error

If anyone has a little extra time, a particular love for APA 7, and an interest in helping to address the scientific file-drawer problem, come join the team at the Journal of Trial and Error! We get to work on manuscripts detailing negative and null results and methodological failures across several scientific disciplines, along with metascience articles and editorials. It's a fun, international team that I have had the pleasure of working with for almost a year now, and its exciting to see the project continue to grow!

The Center of Trial and Error is an academic research organization dedicated to rethinking how scientific knowledge is produced, evaluated, and communicated. At its core is The Journal of Trial and Error, an open-access journal focused on failure, null results, and transparency in scientific research. Submissions span chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, metascience, and more. We are seeking a volunteer copy editor to help ensure manuscripts are polished, consistent, and APA7-compliant before they reach readers. The position is open to students and early-career applicants interested in the editorial side of academic publishing, open science, and scientific integrity. Responsibilities • Apply APA7 style systematically across manuscripts from diverse disciplines • Identify and correct grammatical, typographical, and formatting errors • Flag inconsistencies in tone, logic, structure, or citation formatting and improve sentence-level clarity • Work through manuscripts methodically using established workflows • Communicate edits and questions clearly via written documentation (comments to authors, Slack, email) What we're looking for • Detail-oriented disposition; someone who notices and/or is bothered by errors that others might skim past and finds correction satisfying rather than tedious • Strong command of APA7 • Careful, methodical approach to editing; comfort spending focused time on a single document • Reliable availability of 0-7 hours per week • Background in or curiosity about academic research and familiarity with the conventions of empirical writing • Comfort working with Notion and Slack Prior copy-editing experience is valued but not required if your APA7 knowledge and attention to detail are strong. What we offer • Flexible, remote, asynchronous work with predictable recurring tasks • Exposure to a genuinely unusual journal at the intersection of metascience and publishing reform • Structured onboarding and clear documentation • Opportunity to work across disciplines on research that doesn't fit neatly into conventional publishing To apply Send a short motivation letter and CV to rogers@trialanderror.org. If you have examples of copy-editing work or writing samples, we'd love to see them, but they are not required.

Not everyone who has ever worked in academia chooses to continue their career there. Sometimes academic work turns out not to be the right fit; sometimes it is simply different from what you expected. Some people entered with high ideals that did not come to fruition. Have you worked in an academic setting for at least one year (roughly full-time), and would you like to reflect on your experiences with others who have since left? Join the Journal of Trial and Error event on May 7, from 20:00, at Utrecht University Library City Center. During the evening, we will engage in an open dialogue. Together, we will explore what lessons the university can learn for improving science and higher education, and how these insights might help make academia more sustainable and appealing for the next generation. Register for the event here: https://lnkd.in/eAubcPmJ

Studenten binnen gezondheidszorg opgelet (geneeskunde, mbo/hbo Verpleegkunde, en andere opleidingen binnen gezondheidszorg)! Het Journal of Trial and Error organiseert samen met het UMC Utrecht de Failure88: 88 onmogelijke groepsopdrachten die worden ingestuurd om kans te maken op prijzengeld (hoofdprijs: €400). Maar bij de Failure88 krijg je niet alleen punten als de opdrachten zijn gelukt, maar ook al als je een goede poging hebt gedaan. Zo hopen we het stigma op falen onder studenten te helpen doorbreken. De aftrap van de Failure88 is op 6 mei, en de inzendingen sluiten na 17 mei. De prijsuitreiking is op 20 mei vanaf 17:30 in het Louis Hartlooper. Inschrijven kan via deze link: https://lnkd.in/ezfKeJTk

Is reproducible research an achievable goal and what does it take to get there? In our latest article, Serge Horbach, Nicki Lisa Cole, Simone Kopeinik, Barbara Leitner, Tony Ross-Hellauer, and Joeri Tijdink asked representatives from scholarly publishers, funding agencies, qualitative social scientists, and machine learning researchers to imagine what a more reproducible research ecosystem would look like, and what stands in the way of getting there. The authors identify five clusters of enablers and barriers, from research culture and infrastructure to funding, policy, and training. Across all groups, participants imagined a future where reproducibility is the "new normal", practiced by default, expected by peers, and embedded in the way science is done from the start. But getting there is seen as complicated. The study discusses tensions that need to be addressed: between standardization and methodological diversity, and between top-down mandates and genuine cultural change. Interested? Read the article here: https://lnkd.in/eAEfEsxV

Have you ever thought to look up the latest Hollywood movie alongside your latest research project? Probably not. But it turns out some people have, and they've been using academic and data-sharing platforms to do it. In a new article, Ayumi Ikeda, Fumiya Yonemitsu, Naoto Yoshimura, Kyoshiro Sasaki, and Yuki Yamada document something that started as an accidental discovery and turned into a two-year investigation. Searching the Open Science Framework for film and animation titles, they found what looked like research projects but were actually links to pirated movies and shows. And that was just the beginning. Further investigation turned up fake accounts pointing users toward phishing sites posing as online casinos, collecting credit card numbers and personal data from unsuspecting visitors. The problem wasn't limited to OSF. Searches on figshare, Zenodo, Google Scholar, Academia.edu, and ORCID revealed similar vulnerabilities. The authors note that what they found is likely only the surface of a larger problem, and that platforms relying solely on automated detection systems may be outpaced as bad actors adopt more sophisticated evasion techniques. Read more about it here: https://lnkd.in/eM3FtqA7

The latest issue of the Journal of Trial and Error is out! Are preprints doing more harm than good? Do editors actually check preregistrations during peer review? And are the statistical methods we rely on in animal research actually trustworthy? Volume 6, Issue 1 tackles these questions and more. This issue features a critical argument that preprint servers neglect scientists' duty of care to society, and data showing that editors and reviewers engage with preregistrations far less than assumed, raising questions about whether the practice is delivering on its promises. In terms of methods, two articles identify serious problems in how affective polarization and nicotine addiction are studied, and offer concrete alternatives. Rounding out the issue are a reflection on attentional bias in addiction research, a call for more culturally sensitive misinformation interventions, and a study on identifying biomarkers for neuropsychiatric conditions. This issue was brought to you by our editorial team: Sarahanne Field, Stefan Gaillard, David Grüning, Elvire Landstra, PhD, and Sean Devine. Read the full issue here: https://lnkd.in/emu86R7q

How do you set up a Diamond Open Access journal? It’s a question we faced when we first started JOTE - and one that pops up in our inbox regularly. We’re therefore excited to share our latest blog post by Muriel Strange, which walks you through creating a scholarly journal that’s fully open to everyone - no paywalls, article processing charges, or subscription fees. Whether you’re a researcher exploring publishing options or part of a university supporting scholarly-led journals, this FAQ covers it all: funding, DOIs, infrastructure, and best practices. Discover how Diamond Open Access can move from idea to reality. Read it here: https://lnkd.in/eZhEzEZd

If a study is underpowered, can we trust its findings? In this newly published article, François Léonard and Ezio Tirelli systematically examine statistical power and effect size inflation in nicotine research in mice. Their findings suggest that positive findings in many of these studies are probably false. Across 61 articles and 129 statistical tests, median statistical power was critically low, and a clear pattern emerged: the smaller the sample, the larger the reported effect. The practical implications include producing inconsistent and false findings. The practical implication is uncomfortable: what the field has long treated as reliable results may be far less solid than assumed. The paper offers concrete guidance for researchers on how to determine a Smallest Effect Size of Interest (SESOI) drawing on expert consensus, archival data, and meta-analytic evidence from adjacent methods. Adequately powered studies in this area would require sample sizes far exceeding current norms, pointing toward multi-laboratory collaborations as a necessary path forward. The problem is not unique to nicotine CPP research, but the scholars' precise documentation makes the case for change harder to ignore. Read the article here: https://lnkd.in/e4ZAKSWK

Are we measuring political polarization wrong? In 60% of studies on affective polarization, people's emotional attachment to their own political party and dislike of rival parties, researchers use difference scores to capture it. The idea is straightforward: subtract how warmly someone feels about the opposing party from how warmly they feel about their own, and the gap tells you how polarized they are. It is intuitive and is commonly done, but according to a new article by Lukas K. Sotola, it is also problematic. Sotola discusses conceptual, statistical, and theoretical problems. Difference scores create false equivalences between voters with completely different relationships to both parties, impose hidden assumptions and make it impossible to study in-party affection and out-party dislike as the distinct phenomena they are. Sotola offers a practical alternative: polyvariate regression, a technique that keeps both party ratings separate, revealing associations that difference scores would bury. Applied to data on the attitudes of Americans toward defense spending, it uncovered a pattern invisible to the other method and raises questions about what else the field may have been missing. Read the new article here: https://lnkd.in/eXznapZ7