Finding: Meta-analysis of 178 studies from German academic panels reveals severe publication bias: 43.8% of studies remain unpublished after 6+ years, over 80% of published hypotheses were added ad-hoc (potential HARKing), and over 70% of published hypotheses were supported, indicating systematic selective reporting in social and behavioral sciences.
Why it matters: This exposes fundamental credibility issues in behavioral science research that directly undermines evidence-based teaching and research in HCI, team dynamics, motivation, and decision-making.
Method: Comprehensive comparison of original study submissions versus subsequent publications in two probability-based German panel infrastructures over 6+ years.
Jargon: HARKing = Hypothesizing After Results are Known; File drawer bias = tendency to not publish non-significant findings; Gray literature = reports, theses, conference proceedings outside peer-reviewed journals.
Elif Bastan, Ege Emek, Merve Öztürk et al. (6 authors) • PsyArXiv
Finding: Translating open science terminology into Turkish reveals how language barriers create structural inequities in academic participation, with the translation process itself serving as an act of "epistemic inclusion" that enables broader participation in scientific discourse.
Why it matters: This demonstrates how seemingly neutral technical decisions (like language choice) can create systemic barriers to collaboration and knowledge sharing, which is crucial for understanding inclusive design in academic and professional contexts.
Jargon: Epistemic justice - fairness in how knowledge is created, shared, and valued across different groups; FORRT - Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training, an educational initiative.