Best Bayesian analysis for Group × Condition interaction?
/What's the best Bayesian analysis for a group x condition accuracy interaction?
Read MoreWhat's the best Bayesian analysis for a group x condition accuracy interaction?
Read MoreReviewing manuscripts is an important part of the scientific ecosystem and something we should all do. However, reviewing may not actually help our career all that much, and it's hard to know how much reviewing we should do relative to other activities. Here I suggest that early career scientists in particular should be careful not to review too much.
Read MoreRegularly reviewing the things we are glad we are doing, the things we wish we weren't doing, and how to change these lists can be a tremendous benefit in keeping our lives on track. Here's a form to help make that happen.
Read MoreTo encourage each other to do better science, my lab has put together a checklist of goals and guidelines for scientific papers. Our focus is on encouraging best practices for open science and statistical rigor.
Read MoreI've recently signed the Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative (PRO). Here are some thoughts on why, and more generally on how we as reviewers can have a positive impact on science.
Read MoreI recently looked at the gender of previous speakers at Society for the Neurobiology of Language meetings, which shows consistently more men than women were invited to speak at past conferences. I hope that sharing my experience will encourage others to do the same, as a first step towards having equal gender representation in conference speakers.
Read MoreData sharing is good! And by good we mean bad.
Read More
Jonathan Peelle, PhD
CV: PeelleCV.pdf | Google Scholar profile
Lab: peellelab.org
Office: ISEC 320
E-mail: j.peelle123@northeastern.edu(without the 123)
Mastodon: @jpeelle@neuromatch.social
("Peelle" sounds like "peel". I blame my ancestors for the extra letters.)