The level to which some French research groups still manage not to employ the internet to enhance their visibility is somehow fascinating. But mostly pathetic.

Strange research of the day: "Are some sabbits more competent and warm than others? The lay epistemologist is interested in object value, not in descriptive parameters" (Dubois & Beauvois, Swiss Journal of Psychology, 2011).

Of the randomness of the literature search, part 2: "Female Callosobruchus maculatus mate when they are thirsty: resource-rich ejaculates as mating effort in a beetle" (topic = "receiving gifts" and refine = "psychology")

Don't you hate it when publishers give you the opportunity to download a citation in bibtex format but can't format its syntax properly (i.e. never finish it with a brace)? Or don't apply the citation norms of the field where the paper is the most likely to be cited (translate as "It's the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology", format it to APA norms for f*** sake!")? I do, I am that demanding.

Don't you hate it when publishers give you the opportunity to download a citation in bibtex format but can't format its syntax properly? Or, if they do it properly, don't apply the citation norms of the field where the paper is the most likely to be cited (translate as "It's the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology", format it to APA norms for f*** sake!")? I do, I am that demanding.

Experimenter is looking for participants. Gives credits plus a bonus of germs.

Looking for a free online questionnaire tool that is as brilliant as Medialab or the RPS (i.e. allows to random the order of some sections but not all). Any suggestion?

Looking for an free online questionnaire tool that is as brilliant as Medialab or the RPS (i.e. allows to random the order of some sections but not all). Any suggestion?

Is it not slightly paradoxical that to publish in 'Science' you need to neglect one of the criteria which precisely make science, i.e. reproducibility?