![](\"https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ90w6Bfy08ecBzw8N0NAxiBlfcKKYgCCU-uIXQ7gF9Hm8EWKzbp182rkdzF-EkNltCd3AnKTJ6-sazTeU-XNfhkufeNJ-sjIsq4zhGJW_5KcMdZeGtBZChaC4G809us-KV2hVrQaXNifmgb_SdixYZMKtBMM4oMG5AFH4Xkv1brGfcldKPKI02Y-v20g/s960/in%20colecciones%20unam%20lmichan%202020.jpg\")
La ense\u00f1anza de las ciencias virtual, en l\u00ednea y mediada por tecnolog\u00eda es una alternativa indispensable en el siglo XX
El d\u00eda de ayer nos dieron aviso que durante un par de d\u00edas debemos trabajar en la virtualidad, esto como resultado de los serios problemas de movilidad que se han registrado en la ciudad, esto no es nuevo, el tiempo de transporte es insufrible y la infraestructura de movilidad es un caos en la ciudad, pero esta contrariedad se ha exacerbado con los diversos arreglos que se est\u00e1n realizando para el mundial de futbol que empezar\u00e1 pronto.
Desde el inici\u00f3 de la revoluci\u00f3n digital el formato en l\u00ednea se ha constituido como una constante en el trabajo acad\u00e9mico y como herramienta indispensable para el proceso de ense\u00f1anza-aprendizaje, con la pandemia aprendimos que trabajar en l\u00ednea ser\u00e1 siempre la mejor alternativa para enfrentar problemas de salud, emergencias, movilidad, eventos clim\u00e1ticos inesperados, entre otros. Ense\u00f1ar en l\u00ednea tiene ventajas y desventajas, eso es innegable, como cualquier tecnolog\u00eda, siempre es necesario aprovechar las primeras y minimizar las segundas.
Los cient\u00edficos llevamos 25 a\u00f1os usando la Web consistentemente para todo lo que hacemos, el Internet desde su aparici\u00f3n es indispensable, nadie lo duda, pero contrario a cualquier pron\u00f3stico, en mi Facultad, que est\u00e1 repleta de cient\u00edficos de alto nivel, llena de expertos en innovaci\u00f3n, plena de investigadores prestigiados en d\u00f3nde se ense\u00f1a ciencia de vanguardia y que es lugar en el que se dictan carreras cient\u00edficas de biolog\u00eda, matem\u00e1ticas, matem\u00e1ticas aplicadas, actuaria e incluso la carrera de ciencias de la computaci\u00f3n, dar dos d\u00edas de clase en l\u00ednea caus\u00f3 reclamos, incomodidad, miedo e incluso reclamos expresados principalmente por la planta de profesores investigadores que evitan a toda costa dar una clase en l\u00ednea, principalmente por desconocimiento de la tecnolog\u00eda, por falta de dominio del uso de las herramientas y por que se sientes especialmente fr\u00e1giles e incomodos en el contexto virtual.
Es natural esta reacci\u00f3n, porque gan parte de la planta docente tiene problemas para usar la tecnolog\u00eda inform\u00e1tica con fluidez, fue en una generaci\u00f3n sin Internet, no se aprendieron esas tecnolog\u00edas y por eso solo a minor\u00eda las usa en sus clases y se siente c\u00f3modo trabajando en l\u00ednea. Adem\u00e1s, fue muy fuerte el impacto del cambio a la virtualidad durante la pandemia, muchos tuvieron que hacerlo a fuerzas y con total desconocimiento, lo que causo un trauma que no se ha resuelto. Todo eso nos ha causado un gran rezago en su uso e implementaci\u00f3n de la ense\u00f1anza en l\u00ednea en nuestra Facultad, es un problema principalmente cultural.
No obstante, para enfrentar este problema en la Universidad existen una gran cantidad de instancias como Direcci\u00f3n General de C\u00f3mputo y de Tecnolog\u00edas de Informaci\u00f3n y Comunicaci\u00f3n (DGTIC) la Coordinaci\u00f3n de Evaluaci\u00f3n, Innovaci\u00f3n y Desarrollo Educativos (CEIDE), el\u00a0Sistema Universidad Abierta y Educaci\u00f3n a Distancia (SUAyED) que se encargan de investigar, ense\u00f1ar y dise\u00f1ar infraestructura para usar las tecnolog\u00edas computacionales de vanguardia que son muy \u00fatiles para el formato virtual y que todos los profesores investigadores deber\u00edamos conocer y usar con fluidez como el Repositorio UNAM, Biblioteca UNAM, Descarga UNAM, Revistas UNAM,\u00a0\u00a0por mencionar solo algunas de las mas importantes.
Es por todas estas razones que debo llamar la atenci\u00f3n sobre estos hechos, que sin duda un indicador de varios problemas que vale la pena reconocer y resolver.
Cancer Research UK’s decision to stop funding article processing charges marks a significant shift in how they approach open access. In its April 1st announcement (not an April Fool), the organisation argues that, despite years of investment, the current APC-driven model of open access publishing “hasn’t worked” in delivering a system that is genuinely accessible or fair. Instead of reducing barriers, they claim, the model has simply propped up the businesses of for-profit publishers, especially through hybrid journals of subscription and open access content.
\n\n\n\nA central concern is the inefficient use of charitable funds. Cancer Research UK estimates that ending APC funding will save around \u00a35.2 million over three years, money it argues can be better spent directly on research. The organisation highlights the contradiction of using donated funds to cover publishing fees while the same research community continues to pay subscription costs to access journals. In this sense, APCs are framed not as a sustainable solution to access, but as part of a system that duplicates costs without resolving underlying inequities.
\n\n\n\nMore broadly, the decision reflects a critique of the scholarly publishing ecosystem itself. Cancer Research UK maintains its commitment to open access in principle, but argues that the current system is failing to deliver “an efficient and fair” model of communication. While it is not clear whether other funders will follow suit, the mood in the UK does seem to have markedly shifted against open access and whether it is worth the costs. The UK has spent a great deal on OA and many are feeling that the investment has simply lined the pockets of the commercial publishing industry.
\n\n\n\nYet missing from the announcement is what CRUK’s commitment to open access looks like in the absence of money supporting the same. The charity has reintroduced an embargo period to its OA policy, allowing researchers 6 months before their articles have to be openly available, and so their commitment to OA is already diluted through the announcement. The charity hopes that withdrawing funding will ultimately “drive publishers\u202fto look for a more sustainable arrangement\u202fbetween themselves, universities and academic institutions.”
\n\n\n\nIt is reasonable to want to reassess APC-driven approaches to open access publishing. As funders made money available for OA, publishers have oriented their business models around article volume in order to receive as many APCs as possible and to convince institutions that transformative agreements are worthwhile. The result is a situation in which more and more articles are published, as quickly as possible, with recourse to as little paid labour as possible. Publishers prioritise scale, automation and homogeneity to cope with this volume, leading to problems of fraud, oversupply and peer review fatigue.
\n\n\n\nIt is worth considering whether the withdrawal of APC funding will help with this issue. For starters, CRUK’s decision does not impact the general support for OA at UK universities, many of which have agreements allowing researchers to publish without the need to access CRUK’s APC funding. Given this, the immediate impact of this policy would be to push the costs further onto universities in the form of publishing agreements. The announcement therefore weakens (at least in a small part) the future negotiating position of universities that will be under more pressure to subscribe to these agreements. It would weaken further if other funders follow suit.
\n\n\n\nThis is just the issue: funders cannot claim to want open access while withdrawing funding from open access. Instead, the support needs to be better targeted to the kinds of publishing models they want. It is telling, for example, that the new CRUK policy does not mandate preprints (as some funders have) or provide financial support for non-commercial forms of open access. Instead, the move seems to be a case of austerity dressed up as ethical decision-making, withdrawing support for the idea of open access while claiming it’s all about profiteering.
\n\n\n\nThis situation is one of the consequences of funders having limited tools to bring about the change they hope to see. Much of OA policy (as my book explores) is grounded in an ideology that treats everything as a market problem to be fixed through market instruments. This is the same neoliberal logic that gave rise to APCs and the hope that researchers would create a more functioning market by becoming price sensitive in their publishing decisions. But of course, the withdrawal of funding is grounded in exactly the same logic: that indiscriminately giving and taking away funding is the sum total of how to intervene in the policy space. What is needed is more careful and targeted than this approach is able to achieve.
\n\n\n\nI don’t really know what the way forward should be for funders, but I do know that pulling money from this space is a terrible idea. Open access is a good thing and can be achieved in a variety of different ways that do not simply bow down to individual incentives to publish in the most prestigious way possible. Why not engage your disciplinary communities and work out a community-led way of navigating the problem of commercial publishing? Fund overlay journals, incentivise preprint deposit, support alternative publications, lobby for secondary publishing rights. Put differently: if your problem with open access is that commercial publishers are hoovering up all the money, design open access interventions that specifically prevent commercial publishers from receiving your money. It is absolutely the right time to be building capacity for alternative publishing structures and getting researchers to engage with them, not shrugging your shoulders and letting the market figure it out once more.
\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/eqgd0-xf834","funding_references":null,"guid":"https://www.samuelmoore.org/?p=1640","id":"864bdf10-cdca-4f50-9535-9775a1ae2806","image":"https://www.samuelmoore.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Large-18.-CRUK-Beatson-Institute.webp","images":[],"indexed":true,"indexed_at":1776179695,"language":"en","parent_doi":null,"published_at":1776178816,"reference":[],"registered_at":0,"relationships":[],"rid":"9h7m4-nz477","status":"active","summary":"Cancer Research UK\u2019s decision to stop funding article processing charges marks a significant shift in how they approach open access. In its April 1st announcement (not an April Fool), the organisation argues that, despite years of investment, the current APC-driven model of open access publishing \u201chasn\u2019t worked\u201d in delivering a system that is genuinely accessible or fair.","tags":["Open Access"],"title":"Why funders shouldn’t withdraw money from open access publishing","updated_at":1776179057,"url":"https://www.samuelmoore.org/2026/04/14/why-funders-shouldnt-withdraw-money-from-open-access-publishing/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"abstract":null,"archive_url":null,"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"Team OA Brandenburg"}],"blog":{"archive_collection":24084,"archive_host":null,"archive_prefix":null,"archive_timestamps":null,"authors":null,"canonical_url":null,"category":"otherSocialSciences","community_id":"00dd7e11-a802-44c1-9584-5c56d1f8d417","created_at":1706861187,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Vernetzungs- und Kompetenzstelle Open Access Brandenburg","doi_as_guid":false,"favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/00dd7e11-a802-44c1-9584-5c56d1f8d417/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/feed/atom","filter":null,"funding":null,"generator":"WordPress","generator_raw":"WordPress 6.7.1","home_page_url":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de","id":"f3e666fd-7d84-4c7e-9177-6febb1a076ce","indexed":false,"issn":null,"language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","mastodon":null,"prefix":"10.59350","registered_at":1729803804,"relative_url":null,"ror":null,"secure":true,"slug":"oabrandenburg","status":"active","subfield":"1802","subfield_validated":null,"title":"Open Access Brandenburg","updated_at":1776154158.313175,"use_api":false,"use_mastodon":false,"user_id":"36565831-b661-4f85-8e3a-fd190dd746a8"},"blog_name":"Open Access Brandenburg","blog_slug":"oabrandenburg","content_html":"![\"\"](\"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Student_w.png\")
![\"Wu](\"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/M2025-30_Wu-Fu_Cover-640x951.jpg\")
Die Publikation La escritura transpac\u00edfica von Puo-an Wu Fu (Universit\u00e4t Potsdam) untersucht unterschiedliche Modelle der Welterkl\u00e4rung im Kontext globaler Entwicklungen. Ausgehend von transpazifischen Perspektiven analysiert das Werk literarische und kulturelle Narrative und hebt insbesondere die Bedeutung kollektiver Erinnerung und mehrsprachiger Erz\u00e4hlformen hervor.\n![\"Cover](\"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/M2025-33_Schloussen_Cover.png\")
In ihrer Ver\u00f6ffentlichung Interne und externe Meldestellen\u00a0analysiert Louisa Schloussen (Europa-Universit\u00e4t Viadrina) die rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen des Hinweisgeberschutzes in Deutschland und Europa. Die Autorin beleuchtet bestehende Defizite und entwickelt praxisnahe Reformvorschl\u00e4ge f\u00fcr ein koh\u00e4rentes und verst\u00e4ndliches Schutzsystem.\n![\"\"](\"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Gerling_cover.jpg\")
Der Sammelband Nomadic Camera. Photography, Displacement and Dis:connectivities, herausgegeben u. a. von Winfried Gerling (Fachhochschule Potsdam), widmet sich der Fotografie als mobiles Medium. In interdisziplin\u00e4ren Beitr\u00e4gen werden Zusammenh\u00e4nge zwischen fotografischer Praxis, Migration und Mobilit\u00e4t untersucht sowie neue Perspektiven auf Bildzirkulation, Archivierung und narrative Konstruktionen von Bewegung er\u00f6ffnet.\n![\"Cover](\"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Reifff-Stephan_cover-640x905.png\")
Mit den Beitr\u00e4gen der Wildauer Konferenz f\u00fcr K\u00fcnstliche Intelligenz 2025, herausgegeben von J\u00f6rg Reiff-Stephan (Technische Hochschule Wildau), werden aktuelle Entwicklungen im Bereich der k\u00fcnstlichen Intelligenz dokumentiert. Der Band sammelt wissenschaftliche Beitr\u00e4ge zu zentralen Fragestellungen und Anwendungsfeldern von KI und spiegelt die Dynamik dieses aktuellen Forschungsgebiets wider.\nWu Fu, Puo-an. La escritura transpac\u00edfica. Po\u00e9ticas vectoriales para entender el mundo, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112224663 (Universit\u00e4t Potsdam)
\nSchloussen, Louisa. Interne und externe Meldestellen \u2013 Der nationale Hinweisgeberschutz vor und nach der unionsrechtlichen Harmonisierung, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748966456 (Europa-Universit\u00e4t Viadrina)
\nGerling, Winfried (Hg.). Nomadic Camera. Photography, Displacement and Dis:connectivities, 2026. https://doi.org/10.11116/9789461667151 (Fachhochschule Potsdam)
\nReiff-Stephan, J\u00f6rg (Hg.). Wildauer Konferenz f\u00fcr K\u00fcnstliche Intelligenz 2025, 2025. https://doi.org/10.52825/th-wildau-ensp.v2i (Technische Hochschule Wildau)\n\n\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/10sp8-zte32","funding_references":null,"guid":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/?p=9625","id":"78a69abb-cf18-430f-8ca8-93373dc88cca","image":null,"images":[{"height":"240","src":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Student_w.png","width":"226"},{"alt":"Wu Fu Cover","height":"300","src":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/M2025-30_Wu-Fu_Cover-640x951.jpg","width":"202"},{"alt":"Cover Schloussen","height":"294","src":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/M2025-33_Schloussen_Cover.png","width":"198"},{"height":"283","src":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Gerling_cover.jpg","width":"188"},{"alt":"Cover Reiff Stephan","height":"300","src":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Reifff-Stephan_cover-640x905.png","width":"212"}],"indexed":true,"indexed_at":1776172506,"language":"de","parent_doi":null,"published_at":1776171200,"reference":[],"registered_at":0,"relationships":[],"rid":"gtkjz-x7a33","status":"active","summary":"Im ersten Quartal des Jahres 2026 sind erneut mehrere wissenschaftliche Publikationen von Angehr\u00f6igen der Brandenburger Hochschulen im Open Access erschienen, die mithilfe des Publikationsfonds f\u00fcr Open-Access-Monografien des Landes Brandenburg gef\u00f6rdert wurden. Sie stammen aus unterschiedlichen Fachdisziplinen und zeigen die thematische Breite der Forschung in Brandenburg.","tags":["Neuerscheinungen","OA Publikationsfonds","Deutsches Recht","Europa-Universit\u00e4t Viadrina","Europarecht"],"title":"Neu und Open Access: R\u00fcckblick auf das vergangene Quartal","updated_at":1776171200,"url":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/neu-und-open-access-rueckblick-auf-das-vergangene-quartal-1-2026/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"abstract":"It\u2019s often the way. I posted recently about how to pace a marathon and very quickly received feedback that would\u2019ve improved the original post. Oh well, no going back. This is take two. So, we have a dataset of all runners from the 2025 New York City Marathon.","archive_url":null,"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Royle","given":"Stephen","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8927-6967"}],"blog":{"archive_collection":22145,"archive_host":null,"archive_prefix":"https://wayback.archive-it.org/22145/20231106080607/","archive_timestamps":null,"authors":[{"name":"Stephen Royle"}],"canonical_url":null,"category":"biologicalSciences","community_id":"141eca21-f9bb-44c7-aa0d-2ca0110390c6","created_at":1673740800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"x == (s || z). You say it kwontized","doi_as_guid":false,"favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/d1d0a116-fe9c-4f5a-b8c5-c3b69edb8327/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://quantixed.org/feed/atom/","filter":null,"funding":null,"generator":"WordPress","generator_raw":"WordPress 6.7.1","home_page_url":"https://quantixed.org","id":"39d9ccfd-5461-49f3-a061-efaf066c19b6","indexed":false,"issn":null,"language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","mastodon":"https://fosstodon.org/@quantixed","prefix":"10.59350","registered_at":1729318765,"relative_url":null,"ror":null,"secure":true,"slug":"quantixed","status":"active","subfield":"1307","subfield_validated":null,"title":"quantixed","updated_at":1776154171.028581,"use_api":true,"use_mastodon":true,"user_id":"4731ee99-7f23-4817-a2cd-8ee71d8f4c64"},"blog_name":"quantixed","blog_slug":"quantixed","content_html":"\nIt’s often the way. I posted recently about how to pace a marathon and very quickly received feedback that would’ve improved the original post. Oh well, no going back. This is take two.
\n\n\n\nSo, we have a dataset of all runners from the 2025 New York City Marathon. We want to know how should you pace a marathon. What is the best strategy?
\n\n\n\nDetermining your optimal pace is complex. There’s the theoretical pace that you can achieve – a mix of biomechanics, physiology and training – but it can be very hard to know what this pace is. Anyway, this theoretical pace is what you could achieve when all goes well. You need to factor in the conditions on the day – how you slept, how you fuel, mental attitude, is it windy? can you get in a group and work with others? and so on. A runner may toe the line in the shape to run a sub 3 h marathon, but by the 30 km mark, the story may be very different.
\n\n\n\nIn the last post, we saw that positive splitting (otherwise known as slowing down) is inevitable. So it seems the best strategy is start out faster than your goal pace, bank some time so that you account for the fade.
\n\n\n\nA reader responded with this insightful comment:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWhat I question, though, is whether a (very thorough) analysis of how marathons get run tells us much about how they should be run? This seems to be saying, “Forget about an optimal pace, here’s how to compensate for the sub-optimal pace you’re going to run despite your plans.”
\n
This is correct. Any post hoc analysis like this can only tells us how the marathon was run, not about how they should be run. This is because we don’t know the intention of any runner in the dataset. If we did, then we would know how a runner intended to run the race (i.e. what their pacing strategy was) and then we could ask: did that work out for them?
\n\n\n\nIf only we knew their intention… hmm…
\n\n\n\nThe sub-3 marathon is one of the big goals in running. That is, trying to run it in less than 3 hours. So we know that there are a bunch of runners in the dataset trying to do just that. We know the finish times too. So by definition, the runners finishing between 02:55:00 and 03:00:00 were the folks shooting for sub-3 and who achieved it, while those finishing between 03:00:00 and 03:05:00 were those who didn’t make it. Sure, there will be some in this window who were hoping for 02:50:00 and failed and some who were hoping to do 03:10:00 and ran amazingly well. But by narrowing the window to 5 min either side of 3 h, we have fewer of those than if we took 10 min either side.
\n\n\n\nIf we assume that runners in the 02:55:00 to 03:05:00 finishing window intended to run for a finish time of 3 h, we can analyse how they paced the marathon and how it worked out for them.
\n\n\n\nAnalysing this window also has the advantage that runners of this calibre know how to pace well, compared to those trying for 03:30:00 or 04:00:00. There’s also plenty of them too given that it is a popular goal.
\n\n\n\nSo let’s take a look. Plots first and then the code below.
\n\n\n\nWe’ll use difference from goal pace to visualise runners progress. The goal pace here is ~04:15/km. Below 0 is running ahead of pace (banking time) and running above 0 means being behind schedule.
\n\n\n\nWe colour the runners by whether they made it, sub 3 (red) or failed, went over 3 (blue).
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_over_3_comparison-1024x585.png\")
770 runners were sub 3 whereas 628 were over 3. This can be difficult to see, so let’s take a different view.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-1024x585.png\")
![\"\"](\"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_3_comparison-1024x585.png\")
For both outcomes we have several runners who were clearly shooting for a faster time, but something went wrong and they ended up in our window. They are appear as U-shapes in the difference plots. Rather than remove them, we’ll accept these contaminants and assume that most folks in this window are shooting for a 3 h finish.
\n\n\n\nWe can see different pacing as the race progresses for different runners. Some folks are behind schedule but end up making sub-3, others are ahead of time and fail. To answer our question we need to know: what is the best strategy?
\n\n\n\nWe’ll take 10 km as our marker point. It’s almost one-quarter through. Any excitement of the start with all the crowds messing up pacing is done and we can see at this point who is intending to run at what pace. Let’s say that “on pace” is 2 s/km difference from goal pace. So at 10 km, an “on pace” runner could be \u00b1 20 s from where they should be (00:21:20). If the difference is more than 20 s we’ll say they are behind pace, and if it is greater in the other direction, they are ahead of pace.
\n\n\n\nKnowing this, we can look at the outcome. Of the runners going for 3 h, what was the best strategy?
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-1024x614.png\")
We can see that most people do not negative split a sub-3 marathon. The majority of people making the goal, run the first 10 km (and indeed most of the race) ahead of goal pace.
\n\n\n\nThere’s a risk here though, going out at faster than goal pace means that you might fail. The yellow traces really show how, at 30-35 km, the race gets very tough and people can slow down significantly. Anyone who has run a marathon will tell you that “the race only starts at the 30 km mark”. It’s where people start to hit the wall and this plot really shows that. These folks could have misjudged their theoretical best pace or just struggled on this occasion.
\n\n\n\nI find the strategy for success interesting. A lot of advice out there is to start out a marathon at an easier pace and speed up if you can. While it’s true you shouldn’t go too fast and blow up, the advice should be to train to run at more than 2 s ahead of goal pace and try to maintain that.
\n\n\n\nWith all the caveats in place, let’s try and get some individual-level probabilities from our population-level data.
\n\n\n\nWe looked at the 10 km point, applying a \u00b1 2 s/km threshold for goal pace, and the behind/ahead classifications. We can do this for every waypoint that we have data for. Now, we can say for a given waypoint: of the runners that were say, ahead of pace, how many finished sub-3 (succeeded) and how many were over-3 (failed). This gives us a probability of success for that strategy at that waypoint. We can then plot these probabilities out.
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/probability_of_success_sub_3-1024x585.png\")
If your strategy was to go ahead of pace and you were ahead of pace at 5 km, you have a 65% chance of going sub-3. If you are ahead of pace at 30 km, it climbs to a 72% chance. Obviously it keeps climbing to certain success the further the race progresses.
\n\n\n\nRunning at goal pace gives a 50/50 chance of making it if you’re on pace at 5 km. But if you are only on-pace at the halfway point, your chance of success drops to 37%.
\n\n\n\nIf you are behind pace at 10 km, you have a 19% chance of success and this probability drops as the race continues. Eventually, we hit the point where it is not possible to make up the time that’s lost and it is 100% likely that you will fail.
\n\n\n\nThe best strategy is to go out faster than goal pace and this is what you should train for.
\n\n\n\nNegative splitting is rare. Slowing down after 30 km is highly likely. Failing to account for this means potentially missing out on your goal.
\n\n\n\nThis message is not too different from the previous post, but we now have some probabilities to back up advice on how the race should be run.
\n\n\n\nMost people running a marathon are first-timers who will run this one race and their goal is to simply finish. Let’s face it, most non-runners have no idea whether your finish time was good/bad/whatever. They will just be impressed that you finished! This post is intended for repeat offenders who strive to improve their time. Maybe the best advice is to just go out there, enjoy running your marathon and not worry about pacing. It’s the best feeling in the world to have achieved it whether it’s your first or fifth.
\n\n\n\nThis analysis is obviously limited to one dataset, the 2025 New York City Marathon. It has a flat profile, so any of the probabilities will likely only apply over a similarly flat course in similar conditions. I also mentioned that we assume a 3 h goal for the runners in the window and we saw how this is not perfect, but it is the best we can do. Obviously, the pacing for other goal times may be different, but we saw in the previous analysis that positive splitting is the most likely scenario regardless of pace.
\n\n\n\n\nlibrary(ggplot2)\nlibrary(ggtext)\nlibrary(dplyr)\nlibrary(hms)\n\n## plot styling ----\n\n# qBrand plot styling used. This code should run OK without\n\nmy_colours <- c("Sub 3 - Behind" = "#003d5c",\n "Sub 3 - Goal Pace" = "#954e9b",\n "Sub 3 - Ahead" = "#ff6b59",\n "Over 3 - Behind" = "#464c89",\n "Over 3 - Goal Pace" = "#dd4d88",\n "Over 3 - Ahead" = "#ffa600")\n\nmy_levels <- c("Sub 3 - Behind",\n "Sub 3 - Goal Pace",\n "Sub 3 - Ahead",\n "Over 3 - Behind",\n "Over 3 - Goal Pace",\n "Over 3 - Ahead")\n\n## data wrangling ----\n\n# load csv file from url\n# url <- paste0("https://huggingface.co/datasets/donaldye8812/",\n# "nyc-2025-marathon-splits/resolve/main/",\n# "nyrr_marathon_2025_summary_56480_runners_WITH_SPLITS.csv")\n# df <- read.csv(url)\n\n# save locally\n# write.csv(df, "Output/Data/nyc_marathon_2025_splits.csv", row.names = FALSE) \n\n## main script ----\n\ndf <- read.csv("Output/Data/nyc_marathon_2025_splits.csv")\n\ntimes_df <- df %>%\n select(RunnerID, splitCode, time)\nrunners_df <- df %>%\n select(RunnerName, RunnerID, OverallTime, OverallPlace, Gender,\n Age, City, Country, Bib) %>% \n unique()\nrunners_df$OverallTime <- as_hms(runners_df$OverallTime)\n\n# unique pairs of splitCode and distance -- and add distance in km\nsplit_distances <- df %>%\n select(splitCode, distance) %>%\n unique()\nsplit_distances$distance <- c(4.83,5.00,6.44,8.05,9.66,10.00,11.27,12.87,14.48,\n 15.00,16.09,17.70,19.31,20.00,20.92,21.08,22.53,\n 24.14,25.00,25.75,27.36,28.97,30.00,30.58,32.19,\n 33.80,35.00,35.41,37.01,38.62,40.00,40.23,41.84,\n 42.20)\n\n# merge split distances with times_df\ntimes_df <- merge(times_df, split_distances, by = "splitCode", sort = FALSE)\n\n# order the table by RunnerID and then by distance\ntimes_df <- times_df[order(times_df$RunnerID, times_df$distance), ]\nrow.names(times_df) <- NULL\n# time is character, change it\ntimes_df$time <- as_hms(times_df$time)\n\n# make a df of RunnerID, OverallTime, and a new column called Category which is\n# "Sub 3" or "Over 3"\ncategory_df <- runners_df %>%\n select(RunnerID, OverallTime) %>% \n filter(OverallTime > as_hms("02:55:00") & OverallTime <= as_hms("03:05:00")) %>%\n mutate(Category = ifelse(OverallTime <= as_hms("03:00:00"), "Sub 3", "Over 3"))\n\n# merge category_df with times_df to get the pace for each runner in each\n# category and drop any rows with NA values\ntimes_df <- merge(times_df, category_df,\n by = "RunnerID", all.x = TRUE, sort = FALSE) %>%\n filter(!is.na(Category)) %>%\n mutate(on_par = time - (as_hms("03:00:00") /42.19 * distance))\n\nggplot(times_df, aes(x = distance, y = on_par, group = RunnerID, color = Category)) +\n geom_abline(slope = 0, intercept = 0, linetype = "dashed", color = "black") +\n geom_line(alpha = 0.2) +\n scale_color_manual(values = c("Sub 3" = "#ff6b59", "Over 3" = "#464c89")) +\n labs(title = "Difference from Goal Pace for Sub-3 and Over-3 Runners in NYC Marathon 2025",\n x = "Distance (km)",\n y = "Difference from Goal Pace (seconds)",\n color = "Category") +\n theme_q() +\n guides(colour = guide_legend(override.aes = list(alpha = 1)))\nggsave("Output/Plots/sub_over_3_comparison.png", width = 7, height = 4, dpi = 300)\n\nggplot() +\n geom_abline(slope = 0, intercept = 0, linetype = "dashed", color = "black") +\n geom_line(data = times_df %>%\n filter(Category == "Sub 3"),\n aes(x = distance, y = on_par, group = RunnerID),\n color = "grey", alpha = 0.2) +\n geom_line(data = times_df %>%\n filter(Category == "Over 3"),\n aes(x = distance, y = on_par, group = RunnerID),\n color = "#464c89", alpha = 0.2) +\n labs(title = "Over-3 Runners in NYC Marathon 2025",\n x = "Distance (km)",\n y = "Difference from Goal Pace (seconds)") +\n theme_q()\nggsave("Output/Plots/over_3_comparison.png", width = 7, height = 4, dpi = 300)\n\nggplot() +\n geom_abline(slope = 0, intercept = 0, linetype = "dashed", color = "black") +\n geom_line(data = times_df %>% filter(Category == "Over 3"),\n aes(x = distance, y = on_par, group = RunnerID),\n color = "grey", alpha = 0.2) +\n geom_line(data = times_df %>% filter(Category == "Sub 3"),\n aes(x = distance, y = on_par, group = RunnerID),\n color = "#ff6b59", alpha = 0.2) +\n labs(title = "Sub-3 Runners in NYC Marathon 2025",\n x = "Distance (km)",\n y = "Difference from Goal Pace (seconds)") +\n theme_q()\nggsave("Output/Plots/sub_3_comparison.png", width = 7, height = 4, dpi = 300)\n\n# classify on_par into three categories: "Ahead of Par" for values less than\n# -20, "On Par" for values between -20 and 20, and "Behind Par" for values\n# greater than 20 at the 10K mark, i.e. 2 seconds per km * 10 km = 20 seconds\nclass_df <- times_df %>%\n mutate(par_category = case_when(\n distance == 10 & on_par < -20 ~ "Ahead",\n distance == 10 & on_par >= -20 & on_par <= 20 ~ "Goal Pace",\n distance == 10 & on_par > 20 ~ "Behind",\n TRUE ~ NA_character_\n )) %>% \n filter(!is.na(par_category))\n# paste Category and par_category together to make a new column called final_category\nclass_df <- class_df %>%\n mutate(final_category = paste(Category, par_category, sep = " - ")) %>% \n select(RunnerID, final_category)\n# merge class_df with times_df to get the final_category for each runner in each category and drop any rows with NA values\ntimes_df <- merge(times_df, class_df, by = "RunnerID", all.x = TRUE) %>%\n filter(!is.na(final_category))\n# use my_levels to get facets in the order of my_level\ntimes_df$final_category <- factor(times_df$final_category, levels = my_levels)\n# ggplot of on_par by distance colored by final_category\nggplot(times_df, aes(x = distance, y = on_par, group = RunnerID, color = final_category)) +\n geom_abline(slope = 0, intercept = 0, linetype = "dashed", color = "black") +\n geom_line(alpha = 0.2) +\n scale_color_manual(values = my_colours) +\n labs(title = "Pacing at 10 km and Overall Outcome",\n x = "Distance (km)",\n y = "Difference from Par Time (seconds)",\n color = "Category") +\n theme(legend.position = "none") +\n facet_wrap(~ final_category) +\n theme_q() +\n guides(colour = guide_legend(override.aes = list(alpha = 1)))\nggsave("Output/Plots/pacing_by_final_category.png", width = 10, height = 6, dpi = 300)\n\n\n# calculate the probability of success\n\n# list of unique distances in numerical order\ndistance_list <- sort(unique(times_df$distance))\n\nall_p_df <- tibble()\nfor(i in 1:length(distance_list)) {\n dist <- distance_list[i]\n par <- as_hms("00:00:02") * dist\n class_df <- times_df %>%\n mutate(par_category = case_when(\n distance == dist & on_par < -par ~ "Ahead",\n distance == dist & on_par >= -par & on_par <= par ~ "Goal Pace",\n distance == dist & on_par > par ~ "Behind",\n TRUE ~ NA_character_\n )) %>% \n filter(!is.na(par_category)) %>%\n select(RunnerID, Category, par_category) %>%\n group_by(Category, par_category) %>%\n summarise(count = n()) %>%\n group_by(par_category) %>%\n mutate(percentage = count / sum(count) * 100) %>%\n ungroup() %>% \n mutate(distance = dist) %>% \n select(distance, Category, par_category, percentage)\n all_p_df <- rbind(all_p_df, class_df)\n}\n\nall_p_df$final_category <- paste(all_p_df$Category, all_p_df$par_category, sep = " - ")\nall_p_df$final_category <- factor(all_p_df$final_category, levels = my_levels)\nall_p_df %>% \n filter(grepl("^Sub 3", final_category)) %>% \n ggplot(aes(x = distance, y = percentage, colour = final_category)) +\n geom_line() +\n scale_color_manual(values = my_colours) +\n labs(title = "Probability of Success for Pacing Strategies by Distance",\n x = "Distance (km)",\n y = "Probability of Sub-3 (%)",\n color = "Category") +\n theme_q()\nggsave("Output/Plots/probability_of_success_sub_3.png", width = 7, height = 4, dpi = 300)\n\n—
\n\n\n\nThe post title comes from \u201cMarathon Man\u201d by Ian Brown from his \u201cMy Way\u201d album.
\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/6mvm4-71305","funding_references":null,"guid":"https://quantixed.org/?p=3760","id":"f81be9df-3b47-4b77-8229-6aa6e40a507d","image":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-scaled.png","images":[{"height":"585","sizes":"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px","src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_over_3_comparison-1024x585.png","srcset":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_over_3_comparison-1024x585.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_over_3_comparison-300x171.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_over_3_comparison-768x439.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_over_3_comparison-1536x878.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_over_3_comparison-2048x1170.png","width":"1024"},{"height":"585","sizes":"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px","src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-1024x585.png","srcset":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-1024x585.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-300x171.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-768x439.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-1536x878.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-2048x1170.png","width":"1024"},{"height":"585","sizes":"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px","src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_3_comparison-1024x585.png","srcset":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_3_comparison-1024x585.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_3_comparison-300x171.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_3_comparison-768x439.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_3_comparison-1536x878.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_3_comparison-2048x1170.png","width":"1024"},{"height":"614","sizes":"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px","src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-1024x614.png","srcset":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-1024x614.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-300x180.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-768x461.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-1536x922.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-2048x1229.png","width":"1024"},{"height":"585","sizes":"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px","src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/probability_of_success_sub_3-1024x585.png","srcset":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/probability_of_success_sub_3-1024x585.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/probability_of_success_sub_3-300x171.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/probability_of_success_sub_3-768x439.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/probability_of_success_sub_3-1536x878.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/probability_of_success_sub_3-2048x1170.png","width":"1024"},{"src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_over_3_comparison-1024x585.png"},{"src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-1024x585.png"},{"src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-1024x585.png"},{"src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_3_comparison-1024x585.png"},{"src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-1024x614.png"},{"src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/probability_of_success_sub_3-1024x585.png"}],"indexed":true,"indexed_at":1776172503,"language":"en","parent_doi":null,"published_at":1776169800,"reference":[],"registered_at":0,"relationships":[],"rid":"c220c-k0c73","status":"active","summary":"It\u2019s often the way. I posted recently about how to pace a marathon and very quickly received feedback that would\u2019ve improved the original post. Oh well, no going back. This is take two. So, we have a dataset of all runners from the 2025 New York City Marathon. We want to know how should you pace a marathon.\n\n What is the best strategy?\n\nDetermining your optimal pace is complex.","tags":["Fun","Dataviz","Marathon","Rstats","Running"],"title":"Marathon Man II: how to pace a marathon","updated_at":1776111305,"url":"https://quantixed.org/2026/04/14/marathon-man-ii-how-to-pace-a-marathon/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"abstract":"A dinosaur fossil from another continent. A pressed herbarium sheet from 1847. What could possibly be ethically complex about that? Quite a lot, it turns out.","archive_url":null,"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Bellini","given":"Ginevra"}],"blog":{"archive_collection":null,"archive_host":null,"archive_prefix":null,"archive_timestamps":null,"authors":null,"canonical_url":null,"category":"otherNaturalSciences","community_id":"d21c5e78-88bc-432c-a20b-4e8a8ead1693","created_at":1752852995.900237,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Wissenslabor f\u00fcr naturwissenschaftliche Sammlungen und objektzentrierte Daten","doi_as_guid":false,"favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/d21c5e78-88bc-432c-a20b-4e8a8ead1693/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://winoda.de/feed/atom/","filter":null,"funding":null,"generator":"WordPress","generator_raw":"WordPress 6.8.2","home_page_url":"https://winoda.de/","id":"9833c6dc-a73f-4508-9579-0b5fbe5a2e50","indexed":true,"issn":null,"language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","mastodon":null,"prefix":"10.59350","registered_at":0,"relative_url":null,"ror":null,"secure":true,"slug":"winoda","status":"active","subfield":"1209","subfield_validated":true,"title":"WiNoDa Knowledge Lab Journal en \u2013 WiNoDa Knowledge Lab","updated_at":1776154217.82915,"use_api":true,"use_mastodon":false,"user_id":null},"blog_name":"WiNoDa Knowledge Lab Journal en \u2013 WiNoDa Knowledge Lab","blog_slug":"winoda","content_html":"\nA dinosaur fossil from another continent. A pressed herbarium sheet from 1847. What could possibly be ethically complex about that?
Quite a lot, it turns out.
Join our brand-new seminar series \u201cEthics in Action: Working with Sensitive Data from Scientific Collections\u201d and discover how, by looking more closely at plants, animals, and rocks collected decades or centuries ago, ethical questions multiply fast.
![\"\"](\"https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-1024x513.png\")
Who collected these objects, and how? Whose land, whose knowledge, whose communities were involved? Do the data derived from these collections reproduce old hierarchies, endanger vulnerable species, or erase Indigenous rights \u2014 even today?
From looted artefacts to genetic resources, from colonial histories of acquisition to frameworks like the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance \u2014 our panel of expert speakers will explore the historical and ethical dimensions of collection data, share practical tools for responsible work, and help chart a path toward more just and transparent practices.
All sessions are online, in English, and free to attend.
Sessions overview:
\n\n\n\nData in Society and Datafication: Who Cares About Data? \u2013Prof. Sabina Leonelli [April 21st, 1:15 pm \u2013 2:40 pm CEST]
\n\n\n\nHow to approach contested natural history holdings and their data? Case studies from Museum f\u00fcr Naturkunde Berlin \u2013 Dr. Ina Heumann & Dr. Katja Kaiser\u00a0 [April 29th, 2:00 pm \u2013 4:00 pm CEST]
\n\n\n\nThe making of biodiversity data: collection digitization and its politics in natural history museums \u2013 Dr. Roos Hopmann [May 6th, 2:00 pm \u2013 4:00 pm CEST]
\n\n\n\nInternational Obligations on Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS): What Collections and Researchers Need to Know \u2013Melania Mu\u00f1oz Garc\u00eda, Monique H\u00f6lting, Dr. Martin Wiemers [May 12th, 10:00 am \u2013 11:30 am CEST]
\n\n\n\nThe Hidden World of Sensitive Species Data \u2013Tania Laity & Cam Slatyer [May 21st, 9:00 am \u2013 11:00 am CEST]
\n\n\n\nFrom Vaults to Relationships: Indigenous Data Sovereignty and the Future of Biocollections \u2013 Dr. Leke (Leslie) Hutchins [June 4th, 10:00 am \u2013 12:00 pm CEST]
\n\n\n\nReconnecting Cultural Heritage: Digital Infrastructure for Provenance, Community Knowledge, and Restitution\u2013 Dr. Anne Luther [June 11th, 4:30 pm \u2013 6:30 pm CEST]
\n\n\n\nA Digital Repertory of Colonial Plunder \u2013 Dr. Yann LeGall [June 18th, 11:00 am \u2013 1:00 pm CEST]
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/1wz0w-j3e79","funding_references":null,"guid":"https://winoda.de/?p=12968","id":"d38248ef-34eb-4587-a8e2-509e0f110d38","image":"https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-1024x513.png","images":[{"height":"513","sizes":"(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px","src":"https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-1024x513.png","srcset":"https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-1024x513.png, https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-300x150.png, https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-768x384.png, https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-20x10.png, https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-32x16.png, https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-1536x769.png, https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small.png","width":"1024"},{"src":"https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-1024x513.png"}],"indexed":true,"indexed_at":1776168520,"language":"en","parent_doi":null,"published_at":1776167978,"reference":[],"registered_at":0,"relationships":[],"rid":"b8sdm-fh871","status":"active","summary":"\n A dinosaur fossil from another continent. A pressed herbarium sheet from 1847. What could possibly be ethically complex about that?\n\nQuite a lot, it turns out. Join our brand-new seminar series \u201c\n\n Ethics in Action: Working with Sensitive Data from Scientific Collections\n\n\u201d and discover how, by looking more closely at plants, animals, and rocks collected decades or centuries ago, ethical questions multiply fast.","tags":["Nicht Kategorisiert","WiNoDa Knowledge Lab Journal En"],"title":"Upcoming seminar series: Ethics in action – Working with sensitive data from scientific collections","updated_at":1776168087,"url":"https://winoda.de/en/2026/04/14/upcoming-seminar-series-ethics-in-action-working-with-sensitive-data-from-scientific-collections/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"abstract":null,"archive_url":null,"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Titus","given":"Alexander"}],"blog":{"archive_collection":null,"archive_host":null,"archive_prefix":null,"archive_timestamps":null,"authors":null,"canonical_url":null,"category":"otherEngineeringAndTechnologies","community_id":"20b543e5-67dd-4074-ab77-ef96709668ff","created_at":1734545253,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Exploring how tech, policy, people, and ideas are connected. A special love for AI and biotechnology, but a lot of thinking about how emerging technologies like fusion, AI, quantum, and more are impacting our lives. With some sci-fi thrown in.","doi_as_guid":false,"favicon":null,"feed_format":null,"feed_url":"https://www.connectedideasproject.com/feed","filter":null,"funding":null,"generator":"Substack","generator_raw":"Substack","home_page_url":"https://www.connectedideasproject.com/","id":"493eaf7e-cb73-4a70-a59f-2bfd65c4d4d6","indexed":true,"issn":null,"language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","mastodon":null,"prefix":"10.59350","registered_at":0,"relative_url":null,"ror":null,"secure":true,"slug":"connectedideas","status":"active","subfield":"1305","subfield_validated":null,"title":"The Connected Ideas Project","updated_at":1776154070.386132,"use_api":null,"use_mastodon":false,"user_id":"8713aa0f-974a-4971-a273-c515635b2088"},"blog_name":"The Connected Ideas Project","blog_slug":"connectedideas","content_html":"![\"clear](\"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1518281420975-50db6e5d0a97?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wzMDAzMzh8MHwxfHNlYXJjaHwyMnx8dGltZXxlbnwwfHx8fDE3NzYwOTgwMDh8MA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=1080 "\\"clear")
I sat in a conference session recently and watched something happen that I\u2019ve seen before but never quite named. Speaker after speaker \u2014 technologists, policy people, operators \u2014 kept circling the same idea without landing on it. One talked about detection speed for biological threats. Another about the lag between an AI capability and the regulation that addresses it. A third about why manufacturing learning curves are races, not exercises. The language was different each time. The domain was different. The variable was the same.
Time
Not as metaphor. Not as urgency rhetoric \u2014 the familiar \u201cwe need to move faster\u201d that appears in every keynote and persuades no one. Time as something more fundamental. As the binding constraint that determines whether every other capability \u2014 technical, institutional, industrial \u2014 actually functions or just exists on paper.
It struck me that for all the frameworks we\u2019ve been building in this space \u2014 responsible innovation, governance architecture, reindustrialization strategy \u2014 we\u2019ve been designing for capability, authority, and proportionality. We have not been designing for time.
The podcast audio was AI-generated using Google\u2019s NotebookLM.
There\u2019s a distinction worth drawing carefully, because I think conflating two ideas has made this problem invisible.
Speed is a metric. You can measure it, optimize it, benchmark it. Organizations talk about speed constantly. Move fast. Accelerate. Reduce cycle time. Speed is the thing you improve within a system that already works.
Time is the medium in which all your systems must compose. It is not how fast you go \u2014 it is whether the systems that must coordinate with each other are operating on compatible timescales. A biosecurity detection system that identifies a threat in twelve hours is useless if the interpretation infrastructure takes twelve weeks and the policy execution mechanism takes twelve months. Each component might be excellent on its own terms. The failure is temporal \u2014 they don\u2019t compose.
Engineers have a name for this. Temporal coupling: when two systems that must coordinate operate on fundamentally different timescales, the system breaks. Not because any individual component failed, but because time itself became the fault line.
I want to trace this mechanism across several domains, because I think it explains more about why our current systems are failing than any capability deficit does.
I wrote about governance latency in these pages earlier this year \u2014 the gap between when a system behaves in a new way and when governance responds. I described three components: detection latency, interpretation latency, execution latency. I still believe in that framework. But I\u2019ve started to think I was being too polite about what it actually describes.
Governance latency is not a bug in governance. It is a temporal architecture \u2014 one that was designed, intentionally or not, for a world that moved at a different pace. Congressional hearing calendars. Notice-and-comment rulemaking periods. Interagency coordination cycles. These are not merely slow. They operate on a fundamentally different timescale than the technologies they govern. The gap between those timescales is not inconvenient. It is, itself, a space where outcomes are determined before the formal process even begins.
The nation or institution that understands this \u2014 that treats temporal alignment as a design variable rather than an operational annoyance \u2014 gains an advantage that no amount of capability can offset. Because capability without temporal coordination is potential energy that never converts to kinetic. It sits in reserve, impressive and inert, while the clock runs.
Consider biomanufacturing \u2014 a domain I\u2019ve been writing about in this series.
The circles-and-spirals thesis is, at its core, a temporal argument. The circle traps organizations in a time loop: no production experience means no yield data means no capital means no facilities means no production experience. The loop is self-reinforcing because each node operates on a timescale that prevents the next node from activating.
Capital allocation cycles are quarterly. Facility construction takes years. Workforce development takes a generation. Yield improvement requires thousands of production hours that nobody can access because the facilities don\u2019t exist.
The spiral breaks the circle not by eliminating time, but by synchronizing it. Government demand signals compress the capital decision. Pre-built infrastructure compresses the facility timeline. Science investment steepens the yield curve so fewer production hours are needed to reach viability. The spiral is not faster in any simple sense \u2014 it is temporally coherent. Every node operates on a timescale compatible with the others.
Wright\u2019s Law, the principle that costs decline predictably with cumulative production, is a temporal claim wearing an economic costume. It says: the first mover in production will be the lowest-cost producer, and the gap will compound with time. China is further down the biomanufacturing learning curve than the United States. Every year that gap persists is not a static disadvantage. It is a temporal one \u2014 the curve steepens for whoever is on it and flattens for whoever is not.
Biosecurity is perhaps the most visceral expression of this thesis.
A biological threat does not wait for interpretation. It replicates on its own timescale \u2014 exponential, indifferent to institutional calendars. The difference between containment and catastrophe is not capability. We have the sequencing technology, the surveillance infrastructure, the countermeasure platforms. The difference is temporal coordination. Can you detect, interpret, decide, and act within the doubling time of the threat?
I think about this in my work at Vigilance. The entire architecture of biological threat preparedness is, when you strip away the organizational charts and capability matrices, an exercise in temporal engineering.
You are building systems whose purpose is to compress the gap between event and response to something smaller than the gap between event and consequence.
That\u2019s the design requirement. Everything else is decoration.
Here is where I want to push further than the conference session went, further than most strategy frameworks go.
We tend to treat time as a dimension \u2014 the passive background against which things happen. Decisions take time. Manufacturing takes time. Governance takes time. Time is the water everything swims in.
But the more accurate framing \u2014 the one that explains why temporally misaligned systems keep failing in predictable ways \u2014 is that time is a domain. A space in which advantage can be built, contested, and lost. A domain that requires its own strategy, its own architecture, its own design principles.
If you accept that reframing, certain things follow.
Temporal advantage is designable. You can build organizations, governance structures, and industrial systems that are optimized for temporal coherence \u2014 where the decision cycle, the implementation timeline, and the environment\u2019s rate of change are deliberately aligned.
Temporal disadvantage is structural, not accidental. When a governance system operates on a decadal timescale while the technologies it governs evolve on a monthly one, that is not a speed problem to be solved with urgency. It is an architectural mismatch that requires redesign.
Temporal literacy becomes a core competency. The ability to read a system and identify where temporal misalignment is the binding constraint \u2014 rather than capability, authority, or resources \u2014 becomes as important as technical expertise or policy knowledge.
This is where the argument becomes operational, and where I think builders, policymakers, and capital allocators need to pay close attention.
If time is a domain, then every strategy has a temporal architecture \u2014 whether or not the strategist designed one. The question is not whether your organization operates within time. The question is whether you\u2019ve deliberately engineered how your organization relates to time.
For builders in frontier technology: the competitive advantage is not always the best technology. It is often the technology that reaches operational deployment first and begins descending the learning curve while competitors are still optimizing in the lab. This is Wright\u2019s Law generalized. The first mover in production compounds an advantage that the better-but-later entrant may never overcome. Time on the curve is the asset. Everything else is a bet that time will be forgiving. It usually isn\u2019t.
For policymakers: governance latency is not a staffing problem or a willpower problem. It is a temporal design problem. The question is not \u201chow do we make government faster\u201d \u2014 it is \u201chow do we build governance architectures whose operating timescale matches the domain they govern?\u201d In some cases, that means pre-authorization frameworks that act before the crisis arrives. In others, it means modular governance that can be updated without rewriting the entire regulatory structure. In all cases, it means taking temporal architecture as seriously as institutional authority.
For capital allocators: patience is a temporal strategy, not a virtue. The patient capital that biomanufacturing requires is not charity \u2014 it is an investment in temporal alignment, giving the learning curve enough time to generate the yields that make the economics work. The impatient capital that demands returns on quarterly timescales is not merely unhelpful. It is temporally incompatible with the problem it claims to be solving.
I keep returning to that conference session. The speakers kept naming symptoms \u2014 speed, latency, urgency, readiness \u2014 without naming the condition. The condition is that time is the domain we have not yet learned to design for. We design capability. We design authority. We design architecture. We rarely ask the question that precedes all of them: does this system\u2019s temporal structure match the temporal structure of the problem it exists to solve?
Biological threats replicate on exponential timescales. AI capabilities advance on compressed developmental ones. Governance responds on bureaucratic ones. Manufacturing compounds on production-volume ones. None of these timescales are wrong in isolation. All of them are wrong together \u2014 because nobody designed the temporal coherence between them.
At the frontier of technology, the experiment is not whether we can build fast enough. It is whether we can think in time \u2014 designing systems where the pace of understanding, the pace of building, and the pace of governing are, for once, composed into the same score.
\u2014 Titus
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/47h2h-8jh65","funding_references":null,"guid":"194133957","id":"e9e9640f-b851-4df7-b089-1bfb98e8f7ef","image":"https://substack-video.s3.amazonaws.com/video_upload/post/194133957/7ceede35-dcc8-4dc3-b1b5-08f472cb3da3/transcoded-1776129583.png","images":[{"alt":"clear hour glass beside pink flowers","height":"4480","sizes":"100vw","src":"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1518281420975-50db6e5d0a97?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wzMDAzMzh8MHwxfHNlYXJjaHwyMnx8dGltZXxlbnwwfHx8fDE3NzYwOTgwMDh8MA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=1080","srcset":"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1518281420975-50db6e5d0a97?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wzMDAzMzh8MHwxfHNlYXJjaHwyMnx8dGltZXxlbnwwfHx8fDE3NzYwOTgwMDh8MA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=1080, https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1518281420975-50db6e5d0a97?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wzMDAzMzh8MHwxfHNlYXJjaHwyMnx8dGltZXxlbnwwfHx8fDE3NzYwOTgwMDh8MA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=1080, https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1518281420975-50db6e5d0a97?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wzMDAzMzh8MHwxfHNlYXJjaHwyMnx8dGltZXxlbnwwfHx8fDE3NzYwOTgwMDh8MA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=1080, https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1518281420975-50db6e5d0a97?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wzMDAzMzh8MHwxfHNlYXJjaHwyMnx8dGltZXxlbnwwfHx8fDE3NzYwOTgwMDh8MA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=1080","width":"6720"}],"indexed":true,"indexed_at":1776159717,"language":"en","parent_doi":null,"published_at":1776159074,"reference":[],"registered_at":0,"relationships":[],"rid":"tktk7-h3784","status":"active","summary":"Every capability, every governance framework, every industrial strategy eventually reduces to the same unspoken variable \u2014 and almost nobody is designing for it.","tags":["Policy"],"title":"Ep 63 - The Tempo Thesis","updated_at":1776159074,"url":"https://www.connectedideasproject.com/p/ep-63-the-tempo-thesis","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"abstract":null,"archive_url":null,"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Bezuidenhout","given":"Louise","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4328-3963"}],"blog":{"archive_collection":24082,"archive_host":null,"archive_prefix":null,"archive_timestamps":null,"authors":[{"name":"Leiden Madtrics","url":null}],"canonical_url":null,"category":"socialScience","community_id":"d8304840-75c2-4164-bc37-ec879c4f065b","created_at":1682899200,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Leiden Madtrics","doi_as_guid":false,"favicon":null,"feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/atom/","filter":null,"funding":null,"generator":"Other","generator_raw":"Other","home_page_url":"https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/","id":"a0920819-e194-4514-bca4-5f0837e10c51","indexed":false,"issn":null,"language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","mastodon":null,"prefix":"10.59350","registered_at":1728549179,"relative_url":null,"ror":"https://ror.org/027bh9e22","secure":true,"slug":"leidenmadtrics","status":"active","subfield":"1804","subfield_validated":null,"title":"Leiden Madtrics","updated_at":1776154133.084856,"use_api":null,"use_mastodon":false,"user_id":"ae88df6b-e1cf-4743-86a8-c032659cf5d2"},"blog_name":"Leiden Madtrics","blog_slug":"leidenmadtrics","content_html":"Determining the quality, value, impact, or merit of research is no easy task. Results can vary considerably depending on how these criteria are defined, what elements are assessed and how the assessments are used. Research continues to be evaluated around the world at individual, institutional and national levels, yet considerable discussion remains as to what strategies effectively address the complexity of the task.\u00a0\u00a0
The Strategy Evaluation Protocol (SEP) is a central element of research evaluation in the Netherlands. Focused at a research unit level, the SEP moves away from the exclusive use of quantitative indicators, emphasising instead \"informed peer review\" and qualitative assessment as key elements of evaluation. This protocol is updated every six years, and since 2021, it has focused on the research unit's own strategy as well as on formative and development-oriented evaluation.\u00a0
In March 2026, an update to the protocol was released for the SEP 2027-2033. In addition to its primary focus on quality, relevance and viability, the updated SEP also considers four key elements, namely PhD policy and training, Open Science, responsible research practices, and academic culture.
The focus on Open Science in the SEP offers an exciting opportunity to enrich the impact of the Dutch National Open Science Programme 2030 (NPOS2030) by embedding Open Science more firmly within research unit strategic planning and action. Nonetheless, it must be recognised that realising this ambition is not without challenges.\u00a0
The first reflects a capacity issue. The roll-out of Open Science in the Netherlands is still a work-in-progress and many research units are still at the beginning stages of their journey towards openness. This can mean that research units may struggle to articulate Open Science in their strategic planning and research trajectories.\u00a0
The second is an issue of scoping. The NPOS2030 was intentionally aligned to the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science that outlines a very ambitious framing of Open Science. This has moved conversations beyond the more \u201ctraditional\u201d framings of Open Science (Open Access and Open Data) to include a wide range of additional areas, such as Citizen Science, Open Software, and public engagement. While the broad remit of Open Science offers considerable opportunity, it can be overwhelming for research units to identify where and how to direct their efforts.
The third issue relates to evidence. Within the SEP protocol, the qualitative narrative is accompanied by a variety of indicators. These indicators support the narrative and enable reviewers to delve deeply into the outputs and outcomes of the research unit. It is well-recognised that monitoring and evaluation of Open Science is in its infancy, and many of the elements outlined in the UNESCO Recommendation do not have established approaches for monitoring. This can cause considerable confusion within research units, particularly if approaches to record evidence are not put in place at the beginning of the SEP cycle.\u00a0
In recognition of these challenges, at Leiden University we are exploring an Open Science monitoring strategy designed to assist research units in developing their SEP self-assessment. This approach takes inspiration from the Finnish approach to Open Science monitoring, namely the Readiness Assessment Framework (RAF) tool. A RAF is a self-evaluation tool for services, policies and practices (see below). Taking a sequential approach to Open Science, a RAF guides research units through the steps needed to embed Open Science as a research culture while aligning with national policies on Open Science. The purpose of the tool is to assist research units in identifying gaps and opportunities and to monitor their progress.
![](\"https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/images/uploads/unnamed_resized.png\"/)
Representation of the Finnish RAF
The Finnish RAF focuses on five areas that reflect the Finnish national Open Science approach, namely culture of Open Scholarship, evaluation, education, research data, and publications. Within each area a number of subcategories offer clear guidance as to what would constitute a minimal and optimal level of openness. The Finnish RAF also offers a heterogeneous list of examples of evidence that could be used to further illustrate each category. An example of this is shown below.
![\"Framed\"](\"https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/images/uploads/framed.png\"/)
The wholesale adoption of the Finnish RAF in the Netherlands is, of course, not practical due to differences in the research ecosystems and approaches to Open Science. Nonetheless, the adaption of the methodology and approach for use in a Dutch context offers an exciting opportunity for the Netherlands and the evolution of the SEP. In response to the first concern outlined above, RAFs offer structured roadmapping that supports the SEP approach of strategic planning. This can help research units starting out in their journey toward openness.
The modular nature of the RAF enables new indicators to be added and the model to be scaled. This addresses the second concern above relating to the broad scope of the NPOS2030 and the UNESCO Recommendation. A RAF can evolve with Open Science in the Netherlands, rather than acting as a straightjacket.
Third, and perhaps most exciting, the use of a RAF in the SEP will support the structuring of the narrative self-assessments relating to Open Science. This offers an opportunity to better utilise SEP self-assessments into national strategies to monitor Open Science. Most pertinently, it enables Dutch Open Science monitoring to move beyond traditional approaches that simply count open research products, to better visualise and reward practices and processes that open up and strengthen the entire research lifecycle.
Header picture by Patrick Perkins\u00a0on Unsplash.
DOI:
Tyner et al. (2026) recently reported the results of a major study investigating the replicability of claims in the social and behavioural sciences. They found a replication rate of 55.1% of 274 claims. But is this replication rate too low, too high, or just right?
They concluded that their findings are consistent with prior work that has found \u201clow observed replication success rates\u201d (Tyner et al., 2026, p. 143). But how do we know that an observed replication rate is \u201clow\u201d? As I\u2019ve explained previously, \u201cit is unclear how replication rates can be judged to be \u2018low\u2019 and in need of improvement in the absence of clear targets for \u2018acceptable\u2019 replication rates. Logically, this reasoning represents an incomplete comparison\u201d (Rubin, 2023, p. 4). We need to consider relevant benchmarks against which to judge observed replication rates. Here, I consider two possibilities: the optimal replication rate and the expected replication rate.
One benchmark that might be used to establish whether an observed replication rate is \u201clow\u201d is the optimal replication rate. However, defining an optimal replication rate is problematic because it leads us to ask: \u201coptimal for what purposes?\u201d and different replication rates may be optimal for different purposes. To illustrate, I consider how different stages of research and different philosophies of science might warrant different optimal replication rates.
The optimal replication rate needs to balance the desire to learn from our mistakes in the face of scientific ignorance with the desire to produce reliable and trustworthy scientific knowledge that can be used by society. This balance is often skewed more towards learning in the earlier, discovery and exploration stages of a research topic and more towards consolidation and verification in later, more applied and translational stages. As Nosek et al. (2022) explained:
It would be possible to achieve near-100% replicability by adopting an extremely conservative research agenda that studies phenomena that are already well understood or have extremely high prior odds. Such an approach would produce nearly zero research progress. Science exists to expand the boundaries of knowledge. In this pursuit, false starts and promising leads that turn out to be dead ends are inevitable. The occurrence of nonreplicability should decline with the maturation of a research topic, but a healthy, theoretically generative research enterprise will include nonreplicable findings. (p. 730)
Hence, optimal replication rates are likely to be lower in the earlier exploratory stages of a research topic than in the later confirmatory stages that are intended to translate findings into real-world applications.
The tension between learning and confirming is also apparent in different philosophies of science. Hence, the optimal replication rate may also be lower in theory-centric falsificationist philosophies of science than in effect-centric confirmatory philosophies. In falsificationist philosophies, (reproducible) replication failures may entail logical refutations of theories that fuel scientific discovery and progress (Popper, 1966, p. 285; Rubin, 2025, p. 11). As Popper (1962) explained, \u201crefutations have often been regarded as establishing the failure of a scientist, or at least of [their] theory. It should be stressed that this is an inductivist error. Every refutation should be regarded as a great success\u201d (p. 243). Accordingly, high quality, reproducible replication failures should be seen as causes for celebration rather than grounds for a replication \u201ccrisis.\u201d As Mayrhofer et al. (2024) explained:
From this [Popperian] perspective, the replication crisis is not a crisis at all but rather a process that increases our knowledge by demonstrating that certain theories are false or at least cannot be corroborated by repeated observations, increasing their probability of being false. (p. 4)
Similarly, from a Lakatosian perspective, replication failures may inspire theory development by suggesting the presence of unrecognized moderators and boundary conditions (e.g., Lakatos, 1978; Rubin, 2025). As Nosek (quoted in Jones, 2026) explained:
Replication, when it fails, is theoretically generative. It\u2019s like: \u201cWait a second, did we change something that we didn\u2019t realize was important? We had no reason to expect something different here, but something different happened. Now we have a mystery.\u201d And that\u2019s where discovery happens. (p. 38)
In contrast, effect-centric confirmatory philosophies focus more on establishing the existence of phenomena vis-\u00e0-vis their replicability before proceeding to testing theories that explain those phenomena. As Nak et al. (2026) explained:
The massive replication work that has ensued in the wake of the reproducibility crisis (Nosek et al., 2022) in many ways already exemplifies this turn towards phenomena, as it clearly was never aimed at theory testing but simply at assessing the replicability of psychological effects. For instance, the Open Science Collaboration (2015) set out to estimate the replicability of \u201ceffects\u201d rather than to confirm or falsify theories. (p. 24)
From this effect-centric perspective, replication failures cast doubt on the existence of phenomena. Hence, the optimal replication rate should be higher under a confirmatory philosophy of \u201cphenomena consolidation\u201d (Nak et al., 2026) than under a falsificationist philosophy of theory development (Lakatos, 1978; Popper, 1962, 1966). (See also Devezer & Buzbas\u2019, 2023, distinction between \u201cresult-centric\u201d and \u201cmodel-centric\u201d science and Feest\u2019s, 2024, distinction between \u201ceffect-seekers\u201d and \u201ccomplexity mongers.\u201d)
In summary, the optimal replication rate may vary depending on both (a) stage of research and (b) philosophy of science. In particular, optimal replication rates should be lower in discovery and exploratory stages of research and research that follows a theory-centric falsificationist approach but higher in applied and translational stages and research that follows an effect-centric confirmatory approach.
Given its variability and ambiguity, it is unclear how to formally specify the optimal replication rate. Indeed, Tyner et al. (2026) concluded that \u201cthe optimal replicability rate is not known\u201d (p. 148; see also Nosek, quoted in Fox, 2026). In other words, it is unclear what the observed replication rate should be. Instead, we can consider what people expect the replication rate to be. We can then use this expected replication rate as a benchmark against which to judge whether the observed replication rate is too low, too high, or consistent with expectations. For example, commenting on Tyner et al.\u2019s (2026) work, Nosek (quoted in Jones, 2026) assumed that scientists would be surprised by a lower than expected replication rate:
We don\u2019t know what the optimal level of replicability is....The important part is not the number \u2014 it\u2019s that scientists say \u201cwow, I had presumed that published findings are more repeatable than they are.\u201d (p. 38)
Indeed, several commentators have argued that the replication crisis occurred because observed replication rates are markedly lower than \u201cexpected or desired\u201d (Nosek et al., 2022, p. 724; see also Munaf\u00f2 et al., 2017, p. 1; Open Science Collaboration, 2015, p. 7). Hence, as Tyner et al. (2026) explained, \u201cthe problem to solve is not unreplicability per se, it is overconfidence\u201d (p. 148; see also Nosek, quoted in Fox, 2026).
Consistent with this view, there is evidence that researchers tend to overestimate replication rates. For example, Table 1 provides data from six studies that have used prediction markets and forecasting surveys to estimate expected replication rates and compare them with observed replication rates.
![\"\"](\"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png\")
Table 1 shows that people tend to overestimate replication rates. Importantly, however, the extent of this overestimation does not appear to be particularly extreme. On average, people estimate the replication rate to be around 13 percentage points higher than the observed replication rate (i.e., ~63% rather than ~50%). It is debatable whether a 13-point overestimation represents sufficient grounds for a replication \u201ccrisis\u201d (Rubin, 2023, p. 4).
It is also important to appreciate that the expected replication rate reflects people\u2019s beliefs, and that their beliefs may not represent the optimal replication rate for scientific purposes. Hence, a discrepancy between the observed and expected replication rate does not necessarily imply that we need to change our research practices. Indeed, if community expectations are substantially different from both observed and optimal replication rates, then they will be not only unrealistic but also suboptimal! Hence, we end up in a situation in which (a) the optimal replication rate is unclear and (b) the expected replication rate may be misleading.
is one of the authors of the Tyner et al. (2026) paper. He recently shared his thoughts about Tyner et al.\u2019s (2026) work on BlueSky (Haber, 2026, April 10). His comments reflect some of the issues discussed here:
Question now becomes \u201cdoes the replication rate differ from what people *expect* it would be.\u201d
There\u2019s definitely a problem if those don\u2019t match, but unclear what the problem is.
There is no obviously correct benchmark for what that replication rate should be (and be skeptical of anyone who is sure they know what it is).
Heck, with all the time I\u2019ve spent in this work, I am still truly not sure if/how much we should be bothered by the rates found.
The typical response to the replication crisis has been to design and promote changes to research practices to try to increase observed replication rates. This response implies that the replication crisis is a methodological problem, and that methodological solutions are required to increase observed replication rates to a more optimal level. However, if the optimal replication rate is unknown, then the success or failure of this response will be unclear. Again, the problem here is one of a logically incomplete comparison (Rubin, 2023, p. 4).
An alternative perspective is to view the replication crisis as a problem of researchers\u2019 collective \u201coverconfidence\u201d (Tyner et al., 2026, p. 148) caused by their unrealistically high expected replication rates. This more social psychological perspective avoids the problem of an incomplete comparison because we are able to measure both observed and expected replication rates. It also implies an alternative solution to the replication crisis. Specifically, the replication crisis can be addressed by not only increasing the observed replication rate but also decreasing the expected replication rate. From this perspective, it may be helpful to educate scientists, the public, and the media that (a) there is no clear optimal replication rate and (b) a ~50% replication rate is realistic.
Some may balk at the proposal to reduce people\u2019s expected replication rate because they view unexpectedly low replication rates as implying that original studies suffer from low quality methodology and questionable research practices that produced false positive results. However, it is worth referring to Tyner et al.\u2019s (2026) sage advice when interpreting replication failures and successes:
Replication failures are not necessarily due to the original findings having low credibility. Low replication rates can also be due to false negatives, poorly designed replications, selecting only positive results for replication, and differences between original and replication studies that are initially perceived as unimportant. (p. 143)
A single failure to replicate does not justify concluding that the original research was wrong \u2026. Even if the replication appeared to be testing the same research question, there could be differences in the methodology, sample or context that are unrecognized moderators of the outcome. In addition, even if the replication researchers were diligent in conducting the research, there could be unrecognized errors or flaws in implementing the replication protocol that interfered with observing the outcome. (p. 147)
A single successful replication does not justify concluding that the original research was correct \u2026. The replicability of an effect is not the same as the validity of its interpretation. Original and replication studies may share confounds, faulty measures or other design weaknesses that produce replicable, but misinterpreted, outcomes. (p. 148)
In summary, it\u2019s difficult to argue that replications rates are suboptimal because it is unclear what the optimal replication rate should be. It\u2019s easier to argue that replication rates are lower than expected, but the evidence suggests that they are only around 13 percentage points below community expectations, and it\u2019s unclear whether this degree of discrepancy is problematic, especially given that community expectations may not be the best guide for scientific practice. Consequently, the rationale for a replication \u201ccrisis\u201d remains debatable. Finally, if the \u201ccrisis\u201d is conceived as a problem of collective \u201coverconfidence\u201d (Tyner et al., 2026, p. 148) rather than inadequate methodology, then it may be more effective to adjust community expectations to better reflect realistic replication rates. In other words, the replication crisis may serve as a valuable lesson in scientific humility.
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Forsell, E., Ho, T. H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., ... & Wu, H. (2016). Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science, 351(6280), 1433\u20131436. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf091
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T. H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., ... & Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637-644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z
Chandrashekar, S. P., Viganola, D., Dreber, A., Johannesson, M., Pfeiffer, T., Siegel, A., & Feldman, G. (2026). Using prediction markets and forecasting surveys to predict 28 replication outcomes of classic articles in social psychology and judgement and decision making. Royal Society Open Science, 13(1), 250377. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.250377
Devezer, B., & Buzbas, E. O. (2023). Rigorous exploration in a model-centric science via epistemic iteration. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 12(2), 189\u2013194. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000121
Dreber, A., Pfeiffer, T., Almenberg, J., Isaksson, S., Wilson, B., Chen, Y., ... & Johannesson, M. (2015). Using prediction markets to estimate the reproducibility of scientific research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(50), 15343\u201315347. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516179112
Feest, U. (2024). What is the replication crisis a crisis of? Philosophy of Science, 91(5), 1361-1371. https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2024.2
Fox, J. (2026, April 11). When being right less than half the time\u2026is fine. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-04-11/when-being-right-less-than-half-the-time-is-fine
Gordon, M., Viganola, D., Dreber, A., Johannesson, M., & Pfeiffer, T. (2021). Predicting replicability\u2014Analysis of survey and prediction market data from large-scale forecasting projects. PLOS One, 16(4), e0248780. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248780
Jones, N. (2026, April 2). Why science has a credibility problem \u2014 and how to address it. Nature, 652, 36. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00972-4
Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes (Philosophical Papers, Volume I). Cambridge University Press.
Mayrhofer, R., B\u00fcchner, I. C., & Hevesi, J. (2024). The quantitative paradigm and the nature of the human mind. The replication crisis as an epistemological crisis of quantitative psychology in view of the ontic nature of the psyche. Frontiers in Psychology, 15:1390233. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1390233
Mody, F., Wilkinson, D. P., Fraser, H., Fidler, F., Bishop, M. M., Burgman, M., \u2026 Pfeiffer, T. (2026). Large-scale human predictions of the replicability of published social and behavioural science papers \u2013 a multi- study analysis. MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/vgyed_v1
Munaf\u00f2, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., ... & Ioannidis, J. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
Nak, J., van Dongen, N. N. N., Woodward, J. F., Scheel, A. M., Haig, B., van Bork, R., Blanken, T. F., de Ron, J., Finnemann, A., Haslbeck, J., Francken, J., Eronen, M., van Lissa, C. J., Dijstelbloem, H., & Borsboom, D. (2026). Establishing psychological phenomena: An alternative methodological perspective on scientific practice. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rh9cu_v1
Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., ... & Vazire, S. (2022). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 719\u2013748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Popper, K. R. (1962). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge.
Popper, K. R. (1966). Some comments on truth and the growth of knowledge. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, 44, 285-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0049-237X(09)70596-8
Rubin, M. (2023). Questionable metascience practices. Journal of Trial and Error, 4(1), 5\u201320. https://doi.org/10.36850/mr4
Rubin, M. (2025). The replication crisis is less of a \u201ccrisis\u201d in Lakatos\u2019 philosophy of science than it is in Popper\u2019s. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 15(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-024-00629-x
Tyner, A. H., Abatayo, A. L., Daley, M., et al. (2026). Investigating the replicability of the social and behavioural sciences. Nature, 652, 143\u2013150. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-10078-y
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/awhsb-3jy60","funding_references":null,"guid":"194159370","id":"d9f0b626-9f67-4981-adfb-e82b543717a3","image":"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png","images":[{"height":"294.2822802197802","sizes":"100vw","src":"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png","srcset":"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,w_424,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,w_848,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,w_1272,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png","width":"725"},{"src":"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png"},{"src":"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png"}],"indexed":true,"indexed_at":1776154604,"language":"en","parent_doi":null,"published_at":1776153972,"reference":[{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf091"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.250377"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000121"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516179112"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2024.2"},{"id":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-04-11/when-being-right-less-than-half-the-time-is-fine"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248780"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00972-4"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1390233"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/vgyed_v1"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rh9cu_v1"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S0049-237X(09)70596-8"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.36850/mr4"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-024-00629-x"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-10078-y"},{"id":"https://markrubin.substack.com/subscribe"},{"id":"https://markrubin.substack.com/p/is-a-55-replication-rate-too-low?action=share"}],"registered_at":0,"relationships":[],"rid":"9jwp6-vx087","status":"active","summary":"Tyner et al.","tags":["Replication Crisis","Metascience","False Positives","Popper","Philosophy Of Science"],"title":"Is a 55% Replication Rate Too Low, Too High, or Just Right?","updated_at":1776153972,"url":"https://markrubin.substack.com/p/is-a-55-replication-rate-too-low","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"abstract":"Bibliotheken sind heute, das ist wohl unbestritten, offene Orte, die eine hohe Aufenthaltsqualit\u00e4t anstreben. Schlagworte wie \u201cDritter Ort\u201d, \u201c24 Stunden Bibliothek\u201d, \u201cOpen Library\u201d sind in Bibliotheksstrategien und Berichten \u00fcber Bibliotheken verbreitet. Bibliotheken wollen, dass viele Menschen zu ihnen kommen, ihre Angebote nutzen und vor Ort verweilen. Und das passiert auch.","archive_url":null,"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Schuldt","given":"Karsten"}],"blog":{"archive_collection":24083,"archive_host":null,"archive_prefix":null,"archive_timestamps":null,"authors":null,"canonical_url":null,"category":"otherSocialSciences","community_id":"eee4904d-fc13-4753-a9a0-9c38082ff069","created_at":1706811303,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"weblogs","doi_as_guid":false,"favicon":null,"feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://libreas.wordpress.com/feed/atom","filter":null,"funding":null,"generator":"WordPress.com","generator_raw":"WordPress.com","home_page_url":"https://libreas.wordpress.com","id":"623981d8-f442-4db2-a46e-7a553009fbec","indexed":true,"issn":"1860-7950","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","mastodon":null,"prefix":"10.59350","registered_at":1722592979,"relative_url":null,"ror":null,"secure":true,"slug":"libreas","status":"active","subfield":"3309","subfield_validated":null,"title":"LIBREAS.Library Ideas","updated_at":1776154133.865697,"use_api":true,"use_mastodon":false,"user_id":"36565831-b661-4f85-8e3a-fd190dd746a8"},"blog_name":"LIBREAS.Library Ideas","blog_slug":"libreas","content_html":"\nBibliotheken sind heute, das ist wohl unbestritten, offene Orte, die eine hohe Aufenthaltsqualit\u00e4t anstreben. Schlagworte wie “Dritter Ort”, \u201c24 Stunden Bibliothek”, “Open Library” sind in Bibliotheksstrategien und Berichten \u00fcber Bibliotheken verbreitet. Bibliotheken wollen, dass viele Menschen zu ihnen kommen, ihre Angebote nutzen und vor Ort verweilen. Und das passiert auch. Menschen genie\u00dfen es, Bibliotheken zu besuchen und dort auch eine lange Zeit zu bleiben: zum Lernen, zum Spielen, zum Reden, zum Treffen und zu vielem mehr.
\n\n\n\nUnd hier kommt der Genuss ins Spiel. Zu all dem geh\u00f6rt n\u00e4mlich auch, dass Menschen in Bibliotheken Bed\u00fcrfnissen nachgehen wie Essen, Trinken oder Schlafen. In vielen F\u00e4llen haben Bibliotheken das auch heute schon integriert. Bibliothekscaf\u00e9s, Getr\u00e4nkeautomaten, Sofas und Lounges sind weit verbreitet, sowohl in Wissenschaftlichen als auch \u00d6ffentlichen Bibliotheken. Einzelne Bibliotheken bieten, auch wenn sie es nicht unbedingt bewerben, sogar Orte an, die explizit f\u00fcr kurze Schlafpausen gedacht sind.
\n\n\n\nDie Ausgabe #49 der LIBREAS wollen wir nutzen, um diese Aspekte des Bibliotheksalltags in den Mittelpunkt zu stellen. Wir wollen von euch, liebe Kolleg:innen, wissen, was Nutzer:innen in euren Bibliotheken machen. Was beobachtet ihr? Wie nehmt ihr das wahr, wie nehmen das andere Nutzende wahr? Hat sich in den letzten Jahren etwas ver\u00e4ndert? Habt ihr den Raum deshalb neu gestaltet, neue Services entwickelt, die Nutzungsordnung, die \u00d6ffnungszeiten oder anderes angepasst?
\n\n\n\nGenuss hinterl\u00e4sst aber auch, wie wir wissen, Spuren. In einigen Bibliotheken kommt es zu Verm\u00fcllung durch Packungen von Lieferdiensten, durch Einwegbecher, Benutzungsspuren und \u00fcberm\u00e4\u00dfigen Verschlei\u00df. Gleichzeitig zeigt diese intensive Nutzung, dass Bibliotheken ihr Ziel erreichen: Menschen nutzen den Ort Bibliothek gerne, lange und viel. Die Frage, die sich f\u00fcr die Bibliotheken deshalb wohl stellt, ist: Sollten sie das aktiv gestalten, einfach laufen lassen oder gar versuchen, es doch irgendwie einzuschr\u00e4nken?
\n\n\n\n\u00dcbergeordnet kann man diesen Themenkomplex nicht nur mit Einzelberichten angehen, sondern sich zum Beispiel auch fragen, ob diese genussvolle Nutzung von Bibliotheken eigentlich wirklich so neu ist oder einfach nur weniger beachtet und gef\u00f6rdert wurde. Beispielsweise gab es vor rund zwanzig Jahren in kanadischen Bibliotheken eine ganze Reihe von Beobachtungsstudien (unter dem Schlagwort “sweeping the floor”), die oft zu dem Ergebnis kamen, dass Essen und Trinken auch dann Hauptaktivit\u00e4t von Nutzer:innen war, wenn es verboten war. [1] Verschwimmen die Grenzen zwischen all den “Orten”, die Bibliotheken sein wollen oder waren: Lernort, Genussort, Raum der Ruhe, Kulturraum, Erlebnisst\u00e4tte? Gibt es wirklich mehr Herausforderungen oder einfach andere?
\n\n\n\nWir freuen uns \u00fcber Einreichungen ganz verschiedener Art, Formate und Themen. Fotostrecken, Erfahrungsberichte, wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen und anderes sind gleicherma\u00dfen willkommen. Einreichungen (unter Kenntnisnahme der Autor:innenhinweise) k\u00f6nnen bis zur Deadline am 30.09.2026 an das Redaktionspostfach (redaktion(at)libreas.eu) geschickt werden.
\n\n\n\nIhre / eure Redaktion LIBREAS. Library Ideas
\n\n\n\n(Berlin, Brandenburg an der Havel, Chur, G\u00f6ttingen, Karlsruhe und M\u00fcnchen)
\n\n\n\nFu\u00dfnoten:
\n\n\n\n[1] Vergleiche Given, Lisa M ; Leckie, Gloria J. (2003). “Sweepin” the library: Mapping the social activity space of the public library. In: Library & Information Science Research 25 (2003) 4: 365\u2013385, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-8188(03)00049-5.
\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/7d8jd-frq97","funding_references":null,"guid":"https://libreas.wordpress.com/?p=5406","id":"31a6de5b-b053-43de-a195-957672953a87","image":"","images":[],"indexed":true,"indexed_at":1776154608,"language":"de","parent_doi":null,"published_at":1776153327,"reference":[],"registered_at":0,"relationships":[],"rid":"hcbqs-63t08","status":"active","summary":"Bibliotheken sind heute, das ist wohl unbestritten, offene Orte, die eine hohe Aufenthaltsqualit\u00e4t anstreben. Schlagworte wie \u201cDritter Ort\u201d, \u201c24 Stunden Bibliothek\u201d, \u201cOpen Library\u201d sind in Bibliotheksstrategien und Berichten \u00fcber Bibliotheken verbreitet. Bibliotheken wollen, dass viele Menschen zu ihnen kommen, ihre Angebote nutzen und vor Ort verweilen. Und das passiert auch.","tags":["LIBREAS Call For Papers"],"title":"CFP #49: Genuss \u2014 Essen, Trinken, Schlafen in der Bibliothek","updated_at":1776153327,"url":"https://libreas.wordpress.com/2026/04/14/cfp-49-genuss-essen-trinken-schlafen-in-der-bibliothek/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"abstract":"Im Mai 2026 wird sich die Bibliothekswelt des DACH-Raums in Berlin auf der BiblioCon treffen. Dort ist auch die Redaktion der LIBREAS. Library Ideas dabei, u.a. am Donnerstag mit einem Hands-on-Lab, zu dem wir Sie herzlich einladen. Offenes Treffen am 20.05.2026 Am Abend des Mittwoch trifft sich die Redaktion LIBREAS.","archive_url":null,"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Schuldt","given":"Karsten"}],"blog":{"archive_collection":24083,"archive_host":null,"archive_prefix":null,"archive_timestamps":null,"authors":null,"canonical_url":null,"category":"otherSocialSciences","community_id":"eee4904d-fc13-4753-a9a0-9c38082ff069","created_at":1706811303,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"weblogs","doi_as_guid":false,"favicon":null,"feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://libreas.wordpress.com/feed/atom","filter":null,"funding":null,"generator":"WordPress.com","generator_raw":"WordPress.com","home_page_url":"https://libreas.wordpress.com","id":"623981d8-f442-4db2-a46e-7a553009fbec","indexed":true,"issn":"1860-7950","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","mastodon":null,"prefix":"10.59350","registered_at":1722592979,"relative_url":null,"ror":null,"secure":true,"slug":"libreas","status":"active","subfield":"3309","subfield_validated":null,"title":"LIBREAS.Library Ideas","updated_at":1776154133.865697,"use_api":true,"use_mastodon":false,"user_id":"36565831-b661-4f85-8e3a-fd190dd746a8"},"blog_name":"LIBREAS.Library Ideas","blog_slug":"libreas","content_html":"\nIm Mai 2026 wird sich die Bibliothekswelt des DACH-Raums in Berlin auf der BiblioCon treffen. Dort ist auch die Redaktion der LIBREAS. Library Ideas dabei, u.a. am Donnerstag mit einem Hands-on-Lab, zu dem wir Sie herzlich einladen.
\n\n\n\nAm Abend des Mittwoch trifft sich die Redaktion LIBREAS. Library Ideas zu einem gemeinsamen Essen um 19 Uhr im H\u00fcftgold (Neue Bahnhofstra\u00dfe 29, 10245 Berlin) in unmittelbarer N\u00e4he des S-Bahnhof Ostkreuz, der vom Konferenzort mit der Bahn gut erreichbar ist. Dort ist nur Barzahlung m\u00f6glich.
\n\n\n\nWir laden unsere Leser*innen, Autor*innen und Interessierte ein, dazuzukommen und mit uns \u00fcber die Zeitschrift, die Bibliothekswelt und alles andere zu reden.\u00a0
\n\n\n\nZudem trefft ihr uns / treffen Sie uns auf der BiblioCon auch bei den folgenden Veranstaltungen.
\n\n\n\nLa ense\u00f1anza de las ciencias virtual, en l\u00ednea y mediada por tecnolog\u00eda es una alternativa indispensable en el siglo XX
El d\u00eda de ayer nos dieron aviso que durante un par de d\u00edas debemos trabajar en la virtualidad, esto como resultado de los serios problemas de movilidad que se han registrado en la ciudad, esto no es nuevo, el tiempo de transporte es insufrible y la infraestructura de movilidad es un caos en la ciudad, pero esta contrariedad se ha exacerbado con los diversos arreglos que se est\u00e1n realizando para el mundial de futbol que empezar\u00e1 pronto.
Desde el inici\u00f3 de la revoluci\u00f3n digital el formato en l\u00ednea se ha constituido como una constante en el trabajo acad\u00e9mico y como herramienta indispensable para el proceso de ense\u00f1anza-aprendizaje, con la pandemia aprendimos que trabajar en l\u00ednea ser\u00e1 siempre la mejor alternativa para enfrentar problemas de salud, emergencias, movilidad, eventos clim\u00e1ticos inesperados, entre otros. Ense\u00f1ar en l\u00ednea tiene ventajas y desventajas, eso es innegable, como cualquier tecnolog\u00eda, siempre es necesario aprovechar las primeras y minimizar las segundas.
Los cient\u00edficos llevamos 25 a\u00f1os usando la Web consistentemente para todo lo que hacemos, el Internet desde su aparici\u00f3n es indispensable, nadie lo duda, pero contrario a cualquier pron\u00f3stico, en mi Facultad, que est\u00e1 repleta de cient\u00edficos de alto nivel, llena de expertos en innovaci\u00f3n, plena de investigadores prestigiados en d\u00f3nde se ense\u00f1a ciencia de vanguardia y que es lugar en el que se dictan carreras cient\u00edficas de biolog\u00eda, matem\u00e1ticas, matem\u00e1ticas aplicadas, actuaria e incluso la carrera de ciencias de la computaci\u00f3n, dar dos d\u00edas de clase en l\u00ednea caus\u00f3 reclamos, incomodidad, miedo e incluso reclamos expresados principalmente por la planta de profesores investigadores que evitan a toda costa dar una clase en l\u00ednea, principalmente por desconocimiento de la tecnolog\u00eda, por falta de dominio del uso de las herramientas y por que se sientes especialmente fr\u00e1giles e incomodos en el contexto virtual.
Es natural esta reacci\u00f3n, porque gan parte de la planta docente tiene problemas para usar la tecnolog\u00eda inform\u00e1tica con fluidez, fue en una generaci\u00f3n sin Internet, no se aprendieron esas tecnolog\u00edas y por eso solo a minor\u00eda las usa en sus clases y se siente c\u00f3modo trabajando en l\u00ednea. Adem\u00e1s, fue muy fuerte el impacto del cambio a la virtualidad durante la pandemia, muchos tuvieron que hacerlo a fuerzas y con total desconocimiento, lo que causo un trauma que no se ha resuelto. Todo eso nos ha causado un gran rezago en su uso e implementaci\u00f3n de la ense\u00f1anza en l\u00ednea en nuestra Facultad, es un problema principalmente cultural.
No obstante, para enfrentar este problema en la Universidad existen una gran cantidad de instancias como Direcci\u00f3n General de C\u00f3mputo y de Tecnolog\u00edas de Informaci\u00f3n y Comunicaci\u00f3n (DGTIC) la Coordinaci\u00f3n de Evaluaci\u00f3n, Innovaci\u00f3n y Desarrollo Educativos (CEIDE), el\u00a0Sistema Universidad Abierta y Educaci\u00f3n a Distancia (SUAyED) que se encargan de investigar, ense\u00f1ar y dise\u00f1ar infraestructura para usar las tecnolog\u00edas computacionales de vanguardia que son muy \u00fatiles para el formato virtual y que todos los profesores investigadores deber\u00edamos conocer y usar con fluidez como el Repositorio UNAM, Biblioteca UNAM, Descarga UNAM, Revistas UNAM,\u00a0\u00a0por mencionar solo algunas de las mas importantes.
Es por todas estas razones que debo llamar la atenci\u00f3n sobre estos hechos, que sin duda un indicador de varios problemas que vale la pena reconocer y resolver.
Cancer Research UK’s decision to stop funding article processing charges marks a significant shift in how they approach open access. In its April 1st announcement (not an April Fool), the organisation argues that, despite years of investment, the current APC-driven model of open access publishing “hasn’t worked” in delivering a system that is genuinely accessible or fair. Instead of reducing barriers, they claim, the model has simply propped up the businesses of for-profit publishers, especially through hybrid journals of subscription and open access content.
\n\n\n\nA central concern is the inefficient use of charitable funds. Cancer Research UK estimates that ending APC funding will save around \u00a35.2 million over three years, money it argues can be better spent directly on research. The organisation highlights the contradiction of using donated funds to cover publishing fees while the same research community continues to pay subscription costs to access journals. In this sense, APCs are framed not as a sustainable solution to access, but as part of a system that duplicates costs without resolving underlying inequities.
\n\n\n\nMore broadly, the decision reflects a critique of the scholarly publishing ecosystem itself. Cancer Research UK maintains its commitment to open access in principle, but argues that the current system is failing to deliver “an efficient and fair” model of communication. While it is not clear whether other funders will follow suit, the mood in the UK does seem to have markedly shifted against open access and whether it is worth the costs. The UK has spent a great deal on OA and many are feeling that the investment has simply lined the pockets of the commercial publishing industry.
\n\n\n\nYet missing from the announcement is what CRUK’s commitment to open access looks like in the absence of money supporting the same. The charity has reintroduced an embargo period to its OA policy, allowing researchers 6 months before their articles have to be openly available, and so their commitment to OA is already diluted through the announcement. The charity hopes that withdrawing funding will ultimately “drive publishers\u202fto look for a more sustainable arrangement\u202fbetween themselves, universities and academic institutions.”
\n\n\n\nIt is reasonable to want to reassess APC-driven approaches to open access publishing. As funders made money available for OA, publishers have oriented their business models around article volume in order to receive as many APCs as possible and to convince institutions that transformative agreements are worthwhile. The result is a situation in which more and more articles are published, as quickly as possible, with recourse to as little paid labour as possible. Publishers prioritise scale, automation and homogeneity to cope with this volume, leading to problems of fraud, oversupply and peer review fatigue.
\n\n\n\nIt is worth considering whether the withdrawal of APC funding will help with this issue. For starters, CRUK’s decision does not impact the general support for OA at UK universities, many of which have agreements allowing researchers to publish without the need to access CRUK’s APC funding. Given this, the immediate impact of this policy would be to push the costs further onto universities in the form of publishing agreements. The announcement therefore weakens (at least in a small part) the future negotiating position of universities that will be under more pressure to subscribe to these agreements. It would weaken further if other funders follow suit.
\n\n\n\nThis is just the issue: funders cannot claim to want open access while withdrawing funding from open access. Instead, the support needs to be better targeted to the kinds of publishing models they want. It is telling, for example, that the new CRUK policy does not mandate preprints (as some funders have) or provide financial support for non-commercial forms of open access. Instead, the move seems to be a case of austerity dressed up as ethical decision-making, withdrawing support for the idea of open access while claiming it’s all about profiteering.
\n\n\n\nThis situation is one of the consequences of funders having limited tools to bring about the change they hope to see. Much of OA policy (as my book explores) is grounded in an ideology that treats everything as a market problem to be fixed through market instruments. This is the same neoliberal logic that gave rise to APCs and the hope that researchers would create a more functioning market by becoming price sensitive in their publishing decisions. But of course, the withdrawal of funding is grounded in exactly the same logic: that indiscriminately giving and taking away funding is the sum total of how to intervene in the policy space. What is needed is more careful and targeted than this approach is able to achieve.
\n\n\n\nI don’t really know what the way forward should be for funders, but I do know that pulling money from this space is a terrible idea. Open access is a good thing and can be achieved in a variety of different ways that do not simply bow down to individual incentives to publish in the most prestigious way possible. Why not engage your disciplinary communities and work out a community-led way of navigating the problem of commercial publishing? Fund overlay journals, incentivise preprint deposit, support alternative publications, lobby for secondary publishing rights. Put differently: if your problem with open access is that commercial publishers are hoovering up all the money, design open access interventions that specifically prevent commercial publishers from receiving your money. It is absolutely the right time to be building capacity for alternative publishing structures and getting researchers to engage with them, not shrugging your shoulders and letting the market figure it out once more.
\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/eqgd0-xf834","funding_references":null,"guid":"https://www.samuelmoore.org/?p=1640","id":"864bdf10-cdca-4f50-9535-9775a1ae2806","image":"https://www.samuelmoore.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Large-18.-CRUK-Beatson-Institute.webp","images":[],"indexed":true,"indexed_at":1776179695,"language":"en","parent_doi":null,"published_at":1776178816,"reference":[],"registered_at":0,"relationships":[],"rid":"9h7m4-nz477","status":"active","summary":"Cancer Research UK\u2019s decision to stop funding article processing charges marks a significant shift in how they approach open access. In its April 1st announcement (not an April Fool), the organisation argues that, despite years of investment, the current APC-driven model of open access publishing \u201chasn\u2019t worked\u201d in delivering a system that is genuinely accessible or fair.","tags":["Open Access"],"title":"Why funders shouldn’t withdraw money from open access publishing","updated_at":1776179057,"url":"https://www.samuelmoore.org/2026/04/14/why-funders-shouldnt-withdraw-money-from-open-access-publishing/","version":"v1"},{"abstract":null,"archive_url":null,"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"Team OA Brandenburg"}],"blog":{"archive_collection":24084,"archive_host":null,"archive_prefix":null,"archive_timestamps":null,"authors":null,"canonical_url":null,"category":"otherSocialSciences","community_id":"00dd7e11-a802-44c1-9584-5c56d1f8d417","created_at":1706861187,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Vernetzungs- und Kompetenzstelle Open Access Brandenburg","doi_as_guid":false,"favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/00dd7e11-a802-44c1-9584-5c56d1f8d417/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/feed/atom","filter":null,"funding":null,"generator":"WordPress","generator_raw":"WordPress 6.7.1","home_page_url":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de","id":"f3e666fd-7d84-4c7e-9177-6febb1a076ce","indexed":false,"issn":null,"language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","mastodon":null,"prefix":"10.59350","registered_at":1729803804,"relative_url":null,"ror":null,"secure":true,"slug":"oabrandenburg","status":"active","subfield":"1802","subfield_validated":null,"title":"Open Access Brandenburg","updated_at":1776154158.313175,"use_api":false,"use_mastodon":false,"user_id":"36565831-b661-4f85-8e3a-fd190dd746a8"},"blog_name":"Open Access Brandenburg","blog_slug":"oabrandenburg","content_html":"
Die Publikation La escritura transpac\u00edfica von Puo-an Wu Fu (Universit\u00e4t Potsdam) untersucht unterschiedliche Modelle der Welterkl\u00e4rung im Kontext globaler Entwicklungen. Ausgehend von transpazifischen Perspektiven analysiert das Werk literarische und kulturelle Narrative und hebt insbesondere die Bedeutung kollektiver Erinnerung und mehrsprachiger Erz\u00e4hlformen hervor.\nIn ihrer Ver\u00f6ffentlichung Interne und externe Meldestellen\u00a0analysiert Louisa Schloussen (Europa-Universit\u00e4t Viadrina) die rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen des Hinweisgeberschutzes in Deutschland und Europa. Die Autorin beleuchtet bestehende Defizite und entwickelt praxisnahe Reformvorschl\u00e4ge f\u00fcr ein koh\u00e4rentes und verst\u00e4ndliches Schutzsystem.\nDer Sammelband Nomadic Camera. Photography, Displacement and Dis:connectivities, herausgegeben u. a. von Winfried Gerling (Fachhochschule Potsdam), widmet sich der Fotografie als mobiles Medium. In interdisziplin\u00e4ren Beitr\u00e4gen werden Zusammenh\u00e4nge zwischen fotografischer Praxis, Migration und Mobilit\u00e4t untersucht sowie neue Perspektiven auf Bildzirkulation, Archivierung und narrative Konstruktionen von Bewegung er\u00f6ffnet.\nMit den Beitr\u00e4gen der Wildauer Konferenz f\u00fcr K\u00fcnstliche Intelligenz 2025, herausgegeben von J\u00f6rg Reiff-Stephan (Technische Hochschule Wildau), werden aktuelle Entwicklungen im Bereich der k\u00fcnstlichen Intelligenz dokumentiert. Der Band sammelt wissenschaftliche Beitr\u00e4ge zu zentralen Fragestellungen und Anwendungsfeldern von KI und spiegelt die Dynamik dieses aktuellen Forschungsgebiets wider.\nWu Fu, Puo-an. La escritura transpac\u00edfica. Po\u00e9ticas vectoriales para entender el mundo, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112224663 (Universit\u00e4t Potsdam)
\nSchloussen, Louisa. Interne und externe Meldestellen \u2013 Der nationale Hinweisgeberschutz vor und nach der unionsrechtlichen Harmonisierung, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748966456 (Europa-Universit\u00e4t Viadrina)
\nGerling, Winfried (Hg.). Nomadic Camera. Photography, Displacement and Dis:connectivities, 2026. https://doi.org/10.11116/9789461667151 (Fachhochschule Potsdam)
\nReiff-Stephan, J\u00f6rg (Hg.). Wildauer Konferenz f\u00fcr K\u00fcnstliche Intelligenz 2025, 2025. https://doi.org/10.52825/th-wildau-ensp.v2i (Technische Hochschule Wildau)\n\n\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/10sp8-zte32","funding_references":null,"guid":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/?p=9625","id":"78a69abb-cf18-430f-8ca8-93373dc88cca","image":null,"images":[{"height":"240","src":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Student_w.png","width":"226"},{"alt":"Wu Fu Cover","height":"300","src":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/M2025-30_Wu-Fu_Cover-640x951.jpg","width":"202"},{"alt":"Cover Schloussen","height":"294","src":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/M2025-33_Schloussen_Cover.png","width":"198"},{"height":"283","src":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Gerling_cover.jpg","width":"188"},{"alt":"Cover Reiff Stephan","height":"300","src":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Reifff-Stephan_cover-640x905.png","width":"212"}],"indexed":true,"indexed_at":1776172506,"language":"de","parent_doi":null,"published_at":1776171200,"reference":[],"registered_at":0,"relationships":[],"rid":"gtkjz-x7a33","status":"active","summary":"Im ersten Quartal des Jahres 2026 sind erneut mehrere wissenschaftliche Publikationen von Angehr\u00f6igen der Brandenburger Hochschulen im Open Access erschienen, die mithilfe des Publikationsfonds f\u00fcr Open-Access-Monografien des Landes Brandenburg gef\u00f6rdert wurden. Sie stammen aus unterschiedlichen Fachdisziplinen und zeigen die thematische Breite der Forschung in Brandenburg.","tags":["Neuerscheinungen","OA Publikationsfonds","Deutsches Recht","Europa-Universit\u00e4t Viadrina","Europarecht"],"title":"Neu und Open Access: R\u00fcckblick auf das vergangene Quartal","updated_at":1776171200,"url":"https://open-access-brandenburg.de/neu-und-open-access-rueckblick-auf-das-vergangene-quartal-1-2026/","version":"v1"},{"abstract":"It\u2019s often the way. I posted recently about how to pace a marathon and very quickly received feedback that would\u2019ve improved the original post. Oh well, no going back. This is take two. So, we have a dataset of all runners from the 2025 New York City Marathon.","archive_url":null,"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Royle","given":"Stephen","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8927-6967"}],"blog":{"archive_collection":22145,"archive_host":null,"archive_prefix":"https://wayback.archive-it.org/22145/20231106080607/","archive_timestamps":null,"authors":[{"name":"Stephen Royle"}],"canonical_url":null,"category":"biologicalSciences","community_id":"141eca21-f9bb-44c7-aa0d-2ca0110390c6","created_at":1673740800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"x == (s || z). You say it kwontized","doi_as_guid":false,"favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/d1d0a116-fe9c-4f5a-b8c5-c3b69edb8327/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://quantixed.org/feed/atom/","filter":null,"funding":null,"generator":"WordPress","generator_raw":"WordPress 6.7.1","home_page_url":"https://quantixed.org","id":"39d9ccfd-5461-49f3-a061-efaf066c19b6","indexed":false,"issn":null,"language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","mastodon":"https://fosstodon.org/@quantixed","prefix":"10.59350","registered_at":1729318765,"relative_url":null,"ror":null,"secure":true,"slug":"quantixed","status":"active","subfield":"1307","subfield_validated":null,"title":"quantixed","updated_at":1776154171.028581,"use_api":true,"use_mastodon":true,"user_id":"4731ee99-7f23-4817-a2cd-8ee71d8f4c64"},"blog_name":"quantixed","blog_slug":"quantixed","content_html":"\nIt’s often the way. I posted recently about how to pace a marathon and very quickly received feedback that would’ve improved the original post. Oh well, no going back. This is take two.
\n\n\n\nSo, we have a dataset of all runners from the 2025 New York City Marathon. We want to know how should you pace a marathon. What is the best strategy?
\n\n\n\nDetermining your optimal pace is complex. There’s the theoretical pace that you can achieve – a mix of biomechanics, physiology and training – but it can be very hard to know what this pace is. Anyway, this theoretical pace is what you could achieve when all goes well. You need to factor in the conditions on the day – how you slept, how you fuel, mental attitude, is it windy? can you get in a group and work with others? and so on. A runner may toe the line in the shape to run a sub 3 h marathon, but by the 30 km mark, the story may be very different.
\n\n\n\nIn the last post, we saw that positive splitting (otherwise known as slowing down) is inevitable. So it seems the best strategy is start out faster than your goal pace, bank some time so that you account for the fade.
\n\n\n\nA reader responded with this insightful comment:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWhat I question, though, is whether a (very thorough) analysis of how marathons get run tells us much about how they should be run? This seems to be saying, “Forget about an optimal pace, here’s how to compensate for the sub-optimal pace you’re going to run despite your plans.”
\n
This is correct. Any post hoc analysis like this can only tells us how the marathon was run, not about how they should be run. This is because we don’t know the intention of any runner in the dataset. If we did, then we would know how a runner intended to run the race (i.e. what their pacing strategy was) and then we could ask: did that work out for them?
\n\n\n\nIf only we knew their intention… hmm…
\n\n\n\nThe sub-3 marathon is one of the big goals in running. That is, trying to run it in less than 3 hours. So we know that there are a bunch of runners in the dataset trying to do just that. We know the finish times too. So by definition, the runners finishing between 02:55:00 and 03:00:00 were the folks shooting for sub-3 and who achieved it, while those finishing between 03:00:00 and 03:05:00 were those who didn’t make it. Sure, there will be some in this window who were hoping for 02:50:00 and failed and some who were hoping to do 03:10:00 and ran amazingly well. But by narrowing the window to 5 min either side of 3 h, we have fewer of those than if we took 10 min either side.
\n\n\n\nIf we assume that runners in the 02:55:00 to 03:05:00 finishing window intended to run for a finish time of 3 h, we can analyse how they paced the marathon and how it worked out for them.
\n\n\n\nAnalysing this window also has the advantage that runners of this calibre know how to pace well, compared to those trying for 03:30:00 or 04:00:00. There’s also plenty of them too given that it is a popular goal.
\n\n\n\nSo let’s take a look. Plots first and then the code below.
\n\n\n\nWe’ll use difference from goal pace to visualise runners progress. The goal pace here is ~04:15/km. Below 0 is running ahead of pace (banking time) and running above 0 means being behind schedule.
\n\n\n\nWe colour the runners by whether they made it, sub 3 (red) or failed, went over 3 (blue).
\n\n\n\n770 runners were sub 3 whereas 628 were over 3. This can be difficult to see, so let’s take a different view.
\n\n\n\nFor both outcomes we have several runners who were clearly shooting for a faster time, but something went wrong and they ended up in our window. They are appear as U-shapes in the difference plots. Rather than remove them, we’ll accept these contaminants and assume that most folks in this window are shooting for a 3 h finish.
\n\n\n\nWe can see different pacing as the race progresses for different runners. Some folks are behind schedule but end up making sub-3, others are ahead of time and fail. To answer our question we need to know: what is the best strategy?
\n\n\n\nWe’ll take 10 km as our marker point. It’s almost one-quarter through. Any excitement of the start with all the crowds messing up pacing is done and we can see at this point who is intending to run at what pace. Let’s say that “on pace” is 2 s/km difference from goal pace. So at 10 km, an “on pace” runner could be \u00b1 20 s from where they should be (00:21:20). If the difference is more than 20 s we’ll say they are behind pace, and if it is greater in the other direction, they are ahead of pace.
\n\n\n\nKnowing this, we can look at the outcome. Of the runners going for 3 h, what was the best strategy?
\n\n\n\nWe can see that most people do not negative split a sub-3 marathon. The majority of people making the goal, run the first 10 km (and indeed most of the race) ahead of goal pace.
\n\n\n\nThere’s a risk here though, going out at faster than goal pace means that you might fail. The yellow traces really show how, at 30-35 km, the race gets very tough and people can slow down significantly. Anyone who has run a marathon will tell you that “the race only starts at the 30 km mark”. It’s where people start to hit the wall and this plot really shows that. These folks could have misjudged their theoretical best pace or just struggled on this occasion.
\n\n\n\nI find the strategy for success interesting. A lot of advice out there is to start out a marathon at an easier pace and speed up if you can. While it’s true you shouldn’t go too fast and blow up, the advice should be to train to run at more than 2 s ahead of goal pace and try to maintain that.
\n\n\n\nWith all the caveats in place, let’s try and get some individual-level probabilities from our population-level data.
\n\n\n\nWe looked at the 10 km point, applying a \u00b1 2 s/km threshold for goal pace, and the behind/ahead classifications. We can do this for every waypoint that we have data for. Now, we can say for a given waypoint: of the runners that were say, ahead of pace, how many finished sub-3 (succeeded) and how many were over-3 (failed). This gives us a probability of success for that strategy at that waypoint. We can then plot these probabilities out.
\n\n\n\nIf your strategy was to go ahead of pace and you were ahead of pace at 5 km, you have a 65% chance of going sub-3. If you are ahead of pace at 30 km, it climbs to a 72% chance. Obviously it keeps climbing to certain success the further the race progresses.
\n\n\n\nRunning at goal pace gives a 50/50 chance of making it if you’re on pace at 5 km. But if you are only on-pace at the halfway point, your chance of success drops to 37%.
\n\n\n\nIf you are behind pace at 10 km, you have a 19% chance of success and this probability drops as the race continues. Eventually, we hit the point where it is not possible to make up the time that’s lost and it is 100% likely that you will fail.
\n\n\n\nThe best strategy is to go out faster than goal pace and this is what you should train for.
\n\n\n\nNegative splitting is rare. Slowing down after 30 km is highly likely. Failing to account for this means potentially missing out on your goal.
\n\n\n\nThis message is not too different from the previous post, but we now have some probabilities to back up advice on how the race should be run.
\n\n\n\nMost people running a marathon are first-timers who will run this one race and their goal is to simply finish. Let’s face it, most non-runners have no idea whether your finish time was good/bad/whatever. They will just be impressed that you finished! This post is intended for repeat offenders who strive to improve their time. Maybe the best advice is to just go out there, enjoy running your marathon and not worry about pacing. It’s the best feeling in the world to have achieved it whether it’s your first or fifth.
\n\n\n\nThis analysis is obviously limited to one dataset, the 2025 New York City Marathon. It has a flat profile, so any of the probabilities will likely only apply over a similarly flat course in similar conditions. I also mentioned that we assume a 3 h goal for the runners in the window and we saw how this is not perfect, but it is the best we can do. Obviously, the pacing for other goal times may be different, but we saw in the previous analysis that positive splitting is the most likely scenario regardless of pace.
\n\n\n\n\nlibrary(ggplot2)\nlibrary(ggtext)\nlibrary(dplyr)\nlibrary(hms)\n\n## plot styling ----\n\n# qBrand plot styling used. This code should run OK without\n\nmy_colours <- c("Sub 3 - Behind" = "#003d5c",\n "Sub 3 - Goal Pace" = "#954e9b",\n "Sub 3 - Ahead" = "#ff6b59",\n "Over 3 - Behind" = "#464c89",\n "Over 3 - Goal Pace" = "#dd4d88",\n "Over 3 - Ahead" = "#ffa600")\n\nmy_levels <- c("Sub 3 - Behind",\n "Sub 3 - Goal Pace",\n "Sub 3 - Ahead",\n "Over 3 - Behind",\n "Over 3 - Goal Pace",\n "Over 3 - Ahead")\n\n## data wrangling ----\n\n# load csv file from url\n# url <- paste0("https://huggingface.co/datasets/donaldye8812/",\n# "nyc-2025-marathon-splits/resolve/main/",\n# "nyrr_marathon_2025_summary_56480_runners_WITH_SPLITS.csv")\n# df <- read.csv(url)\n\n# save locally\n# write.csv(df, "Output/Data/nyc_marathon_2025_splits.csv", row.names = FALSE) \n\n## main script ----\n\ndf <- read.csv("Output/Data/nyc_marathon_2025_splits.csv")\n\ntimes_df <- df %>%\n select(RunnerID, splitCode, time)\nrunners_df <- df %>%\n select(RunnerName, RunnerID, OverallTime, OverallPlace, Gender,\n Age, City, Country, Bib) %>% \n unique()\nrunners_df$OverallTime <- as_hms(runners_df$OverallTime)\n\n# unique pairs of splitCode and distance -- and add distance in km\nsplit_distances <- df %>%\n select(splitCode, distance) %>%\n unique()\nsplit_distances$distance <- c(4.83,5.00,6.44,8.05,9.66,10.00,11.27,12.87,14.48,\n 15.00,16.09,17.70,19.31,20.00,20.92,21.08,22.53,\n 24.14,25.00,25.75,27.36,28.97,30.00,30.58,32.19,\n 33.80,35.00,35.41,37.01,38.62,40.00,40.23,41.84,\n 42.20)\n\n# merge split distances with times_df\ntimes_df <- merge(times_df, split_distances, by = "splitCode", sort = FALSE)\n\n# order the table by RunnerID and then by distance\ntimes_df <- times_df[order(times_df$RunnerID, times_df$distance), ]\nrow.names(times_df) <- NULL\n# time is character, change it\ntimes_df$time <- as_hms(times_df$time)\n\n# make a df of RunnerID, OverallTime, and a new column called Category which is\n# "Sub 3" or "Over 3"\ncategory_df <- runners_df %>%\n select(RunnerID, OverallTime) %>% \n filter(OverallTime > as_hms("02:55:00") & OverallTime <= as_hms("03:05:00")) %>%\n mutate(Category = ifelse(OverallTime <= as_hms("03:00:00"), "Sub 3", "Over 3"))\n\n# merge category_df with times_df to get the pace for each runner in each\n# category and drop any rows with NA values\ntimes_df <- merge(times_df, category_df,\n by = "RunnerID", all.x = TRUE, sort = FALSE) %>%\n filter(!is.na(Category)) %>%\n mutate(on_par = time - (as_hms("03:00:00") /42.19 * distance))\n\nggplot(times_df, aes(x = distance, y = on_par, group = RunnerID, color = Category)) +\n geom_abline(slope = 0, intercept = 0, linetype = "dashed", color = "black") +\n geom_line(alpha = 0.2) +\n scale_color_manual(values = c("Sub 3" = "#ff6b59", "Over 3" = "#464c89")) +\n labs(title = "Difference from Goal Pace for Sub-3 and Over-3 Runners in NYC Marathon 2025",\n x = "Distance (km)",\n y = "Difference from Goal Pace (seconds)",\n color = "Category") +\n theme_q() +\n guides(colour = guide_legend(override.aes = list(alpha = 1)))\nggsave("Output/Plots/sub_over_3_comparison.png", width = 7, height = 4, dpi = 300)\n\nggplot() +\n geom_abline(slope = 0, intercept = 0, linetype = "dashed", color = "black") +\n geom_line(data = times_df %>%\n filter(Category == "Sub 3"),\n aes(x = distance, y = on_par, group = RunnerID),\n color = "grey", alpha = 0.2) +\n geom_line(data = times_df %>%\n filter(Category == "Over 3"),\n aes(x = distance, y = on_par, group = RunnerID),\n color = "#464c89", alpha = 0.2) +\n labs(title = "Over-3 Runners in NYC Marathon 2025",\n x = "Distance (km)",\n y = "Difference from Goal Pace (seconds)") +\n theme_q()\nggsave("Output/Plots/over_3_comparison.png", width = 7, height = 4, dpi = 300)\n\nggplot() +\n geom_abline(slope = 0, intercept = 0, linetype = "dashed", color = "black") +\n geom_line(data = times_df %>% filter(Category == "Over 3"),\n aes(x = distance, y = on_par, group = RunnerID),\n color = "grey", alpha = 0.2) +\n geom_line(data = times_df %>% filter(Category == "Sub 3"),\n aes(x = distance, y = on_par, group = RunnerID),\n color = "#ff6b59", alpha = 0.2) +\n labs(title = "Sub-3 Runners in NYC Marathon 2025",\n x = "Distance (km)",\n y = "Difference from Goal Pace (seconds)") +\n theme_q()\nggsave("Output/Plots/sub_3_comparison.png", width = 7, height = 4, dpi = 300)\n\n# classify on_par into three categories: "Ahead of Par" for values less than\n# -20, "On Par" for values between -20 and 20, and "Behind Par" for values\n# greater than 20 at the 10K mark, i.e. 2 seconds per km * 10 km = 20 seconds\nclass_df <- times_df %>%\n mutate(par_category = case_when(\n distance == 10 & on_par < -20 ~ "Ahead",\n distance == 10 & on_par >= -20 & on_par <= 20 ~ "Goal Pace",\n distance == 10 & on_par > 20 ~ "Behind",\n TRUE ~ NA_character_\n )) %>% \n filter(!is.na(par_category))\n# paste Category and par_category together to make a new column called final_category\nclass_df <- class_df %>%\n mutate(final_category = paste(Category, par_category, sep = " - ")) %>% \n select(RunnerID, final_category)\n# merge class_df with times_df to get the final_category for each runner in each category and drop any rows with NA values\ntimes_df <- merge(times_df, class_df, by = "RunnerID", all.x = TRUE) %>%\n filter(!is.na(final_category))\n# use my_levels to get facets in the order of my_level\ntimes_df$final_category <- factor(times_df$final_category, levels = my_levels)\n# ggplot of on_par by distance colored by final_category\nggplot(times_df, aes(x = distance, y = on_par, group = RunnerID, color = final_category)) +\n geom_abline(slope = 0, intercept = 0, linetype = "dashed", color = "black") +\n geom_line(alpha = 0.2) +\n scale_color_manual(values = my_colours) +\n labs(title = "Pacing at 10 km and Overall Outcome",\n x = "Distance (km)",\n y = "Difference from Par Time (seconds)",\n color = "Category") +\n theme(legend.position = "none") +\n facet_wrap(~ final_category) +\n theme_q() +\n guides(colour = guide_legend(override.aes = list(alpha = 1)))\nggsave("Output/Plots/pacing_by_final_category.png", width = 10, height = 6, dpi = 300)\n\n\n# calculate the probability of success\n\n# list of unique distances in numerical order\ndistance_list <- sort(unique(times_df$distance))\n\nall_p_df <- tibble()\nfor(i in 1:length(distance_list)) {\n dist <- distance_list[i]\n par <- as_hms("00:00:02") * dist\n class_df <- times_df %>%\n mutate(par_category = case_when(\n distance == dist & on_par < -par ~ "Ahead",\n distance == dist & on_par >= -par & on_par <= par ~ "Goal Pace",\n distance == dist & on_par > par ~ "Behind",\n TRUE ~ NA_character_\n )) %>% \n filter(!is.na(par_category)) %>%\n select(RunnerID, Category, par_category) %>%\n group_by(Category, par_category) %>%\n summarise(count = n()) %>%\n group_by(par_category) %>%\n mutate(percentage = count / sum(count) * 100) %>%\n ungroup() %>% \n mutate(distance = dist) %>% \n select(distance, Category, par_category, percentage)\n all_p_df <- rbind(all_p_df, class_df)\n}\n\nall_p_df$final_category <- paste(all_p_df$Category, all_p_df$par_category, sep = " - ")\nall_p_df$final_category <- factor(all_p_df$final_category, levels = my_levels)\nall_p_df %>% \n filter(grepl("^Sub 3", final_category)) %>% \n ggplot(aes(x = distance, y = percentage, colour = final_category)) +\n geom_line() +\n scale_color_manual(values = my_colours) +\n labs(title = "Probability of Success for Pacing Strategies by Distance",\n x = "Distance (km)",\n y = "Probability of Sub-3 (%)",\n color = "Category") +\n theme_q()\nggsave("Output/Plots/probability_of_success_sub_3.png", width = 7, height = 4, dpi = 300)\n\n—
\n\n\n\nThe post title comes from \u201cMarathon Man\u201d by Ian Brown from his \u201cMy Way\u201d album.
\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/6mvm4-71305","funding_references":null,"guid":"https://quantixed.org/?p=3760","id":"f81be9df-3b47-4b77-8229-6aa6e40a507d","image":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-scaled.png","images":[{"height":"585","sizes":"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px","src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_over_3_comparison-1024x585.png","srcset":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_over_3_comparison-1024x585.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_over_3_comparison-300x171.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_over_3_comparison-768x439.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_over_3_comparison-1536x878.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_over_3_comparison-2048x1170.png","width":"1024"},{"height":"585","sizes":"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px","src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-1024x585.png","srcset":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-1024x585.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-300x171.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-768x439.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-1536x878.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-2048x1170.png","width":"1024"},{"height":"585","sizes":"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px","src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_3_comparison-1024x585.png","srcset":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_3_comparison-1024x585.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_3_comparison-300x171.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_3_comparison-768x439.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_3_comparison-1536x878.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_3_comparison-2048x1170.png","width":"1024"},{"height":"614","sizes":"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px","src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-1024x614.png","srcset":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-1024x614.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-300x180.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-768x461.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-1536x922.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-2048x1229.png","width":"1024"},{"height":"585","sizes":"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px","src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/probability_of_success_sub_3-1024x585.png","srcset":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/probability_of_success_sub_3-1024x585.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/probability_of_success_sub_3-300x171.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/probability_of_success_sub_3-768x439.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/probability_of_success_sub_3-1536x878.png, https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/probability_of_success_sub_3-2048x1170.png","width":"1024"},{"src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_over_3_comparison-1024x585.png"},{"src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-1024x585.png"},{"src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/over_3_comparison-1024x585.png"},{"src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/sub_3_comparison-1024x585.png"},{"src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pacing_by_final_category-1024x614.png"},{"src":"https://quantixed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/probability_of_success_sub_3-1024x585.png"}],"indexed":true,"indexed_at":1776172503,"language":"en","parent_doi":null,"published_at":1776169800,"reference":[],"registered_at":0,"relationships":[],"rid":"c220c-k0c73","status":"active","summary":"It\u2019s often the way. I posted recently about how to pace a marathon and very quickly received feedback that would\u2019ve improved the original post. Oh well, no going back. This is take two. So, we have a dataset of all runners from the 2025 New York City Marathon. We want to know how should you pace a marathon.\n\n What is the best strategy?\n\nDetermining your optimal pace is complex.","tags":["Fun","Dataviz","Marathon","Rstats","Running"],"title":"Marathon Man II: how to pace a marathon","updated_at":1776111305,"url":"https://quantixed.org/2026/04/14/marathon-man-ii-how-to-pace-a-marathon/","version":"v1"},{"abstract":"A dinosaur fossil from another continent. A pressed herbarium sheet from 1847. What could possibly be ethically complex about that? Quite a lot, it turns out.","archive_url":null,"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Bellini","given":"Ginevra"}],"blog":{"archive_collection":null,"archive_host":null,"archive_prefix":null,"archive_timestamps":null,"authors":null,"canonical_url":null,"category":"otherNaturalSciences","community_id":"d21c5e78-88bc-432c-a20b-4e8a8ead1693","created_at":1752852995.900237,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Wissenslabor f\u00fcr naturwissenschaftliche Sammlungen und objektzentrierte Daten","doi_as_guid":false,"favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/d21c5e78-88bc-432c-a20b-4e8a8ead1693/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://winoda.de/feed/atom/","filter":null,"funding":null,"generator":"WordPress","generator_raw":"WordPress 6.8.2","home_page_url":"https://winoda.de/","id":"9833c6dc-a73f-4508-9579-0b5fbe5a2e50","indexed":true,"issn":null,"language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","mastodon":null,"prefix":"10.59350","registered_at":0,"relative_url":null,"ror":null,"secure":true,"slug":"winoda","status":"active","subfield":"1209","subfield_validated":true,"title":"WiNoDa Knowledge Lab Journal en \u2013 WiNoDa Knowledge Lab","updated_at":1776154217.82915,"use_api":true,"use_mastodon":false,"user_id":null},"blog_name":"WiNoDa Knowledge Lab Journal en \u2013 WiNoDa Knowledge Lab","blog_slug":"winoda","content_html":"\nA dinosaur fossil from another continent. A pressed herbarium sheet from 1847. What could possibly be ethically complex about that?
Quite a lot, it turns out.
Join our brand-new seminar series \u201cEthics in Action: Working with Sensitive Data from Scientific Collections\u201d and discover how, by looking more closely at plants, animals, and rocks collected decades or centuries ago, ethical questions multiply fast.
Who collected these objects, and how? Whose land, whose knowledge, whose communities were involved? Do the data derived from these collections reproduce old hierarchies, endanger vulnerable species, or erase Indigenous rights \u2014 even today?
From looted artefacts to genetic resources, from colonial histories of acquisition to frameworks like the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance \u2014 our panel of expert speakers will explore the historical and ethical dimensions of collection data, share practical tools for responsible work, and help chart a path toward more just and transparent practices.
All sessions are online, in English, and free to attend.
Sessions overview:
\n\n\n\nData in Society and Datafication: Who Cares About Data? \u2013Prof. Sabina Leonelli [April 21st, 1:15 pm \u2013 2:40 pm CEST]
\n\n\n\nHow to approach contested natural history holdings and their data? Case studies from Museum f\u00fcr Naturkunde Berlin \u2013 Dr. Ina Heumann & Dr. Katja Kaiser\u00a0 [April 29th, 2:00 pm \u2013 4:00 pm CEST]
\n\n\n\nThe making of biodiversity data: collection digitization and its politics in natural history museums \u2013 Dr. Roos Hopmann [May 6th, 2:00 pm \u2013 4:00 pm CEST]
\n\n\n\nInternational Obligations on Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS): What Collections and Researchers Need to Know \u2013Melania Mu\u00f1oz Garc\u00eda, Monique H\u00f6lting, Dr. Martin Wiemers [May 12th, 10:00 am \u2013 11:30 am CEST]
\n\n\n\nThe Hidden World of Sensitive Species Data \u2013Tania Laity & Cam Slatyer [May 21st, 9:00 am \u2013 11:00 am CEST]
\n\n\n\nFrom Vaults to Relationships: Indigenous Data Sovereignty and the Future of Biocollections \u2013 Dr. Leke (Leslie) Hutchins [June 4th, 10:00 am \u2013 12:00 pm CEST]
\n\n\n\nReconnecting Cultural Heritage: Digital Infrastructure for Provenance, Community Knowledge, and Restitution\u2013 Dr. Anne Luther [June 11th, 4:30 pm \u2013 6:30 pm CEST]
\n\n\n\nA Digital Repertory of Colonial Plunder \u2013 Dr. Yann LeGall [June 18th, 11:00 am \u2013 1:00 pm CEST]
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/1wz0w-j3e79","funding_references":null,"guid":"https://winoda.de/?p=12968","id":"d38248ef-34eb-4587-a8e2-509e0f110d38","image":"https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-1024x513.png","images":[{"height":"513","sizes":"(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px","src":"https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-1024x513.png","srcset":"https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-1024x513.png, https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-300x150.png, https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-768x384.png, https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-20x10.png, https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-32x16.png, https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-1536x769.png, https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small.png","width":"1024"},{"src":"https://winoda.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/diplodocus-small-1024x513.png"}],"indexed":true,"indexed_at":1776168520,"language":"en","parent_doi":null,"published_at":1776167978,"reference":[],"registered_at":0,"relationships":[],"rid":"b8sdm-fh871","status":"active","summary":"\n A dinosaur fossil from another continent. A pressed herbarium sheet from 1847. What could possibly be ethically complex about that?\n\nQuite a lot, it turns out. Join our brand-new seminar series \u201c\n\n Ethics in Action: Working with Sensitive Data from Scientific Collections\n\n\u201d and discover how, by looking more closely at plants, animals, and rocks collected decades or centuries ago, ethical questions multiply fast.","tags":["Nicht Kategorisiert","WiNoDa Knowledge Lab Journal En"],"title":"Upcoming seminar series: Ethics in action – Working with sensitive data from scientific collections","updated_at":1776168087,"url":"https://winoda.de/en/2026/04/14/upcoming-seminar-series-ethics-in-action-working-with-sensitive-data-from-scientific-collections/","version":"v1"},{"abstract":null,"archive_url":null,"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Titus","given":"Alexander"}],"blog":{"archive_collection":null,"archive_host":null,"archive_prefix":null,"archive_timestamps":null,"authors":null,"canonical_url":null,"category":"otherEngineeringAndTechnologies","community_id":"20b543e5-67dd-4074-ab77-ef96709668ff","created_at":1734545253,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Exploring how tech, policy, people, and ideas are connected. A special love for AI and biotechnology, but a lot of thinking about how emerging technologies like fusion, AI, quantum, and more are impacting our lives. With some sci-fi thrown in.","doi_as_guid":false,"favicon":null,"feed_format":null,"feed_url":"https://www.connectedideasproject.com/feed","filter":null,"funding":null,"generator":"Substack","generator_raw":"Substack","home_page_url":"https://www.connectedideasproject.com/","id":"493eaf7e-cb73-4a70-a59f-2bfd65c4d4d6","indexed":true,"issn":null,"language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","mastodon":null,"prefix":"10.59350","registered_at":0,"relative_url":null,"ror":null,"secure":true,"slug":"connectedideas","status":"active","subfield":"1305","subfield_validated":null,"title":"The Connected Ideas Project","updated_at":1776154070.386132,"use_api":null,"use_mastodon":false,"user_id":"8713aa0f-974a-4971-a273-c515635b2088"},"blog_name":"The Connected Ideas Project","blog_slug":"connectedideas","content_html":"I sat in a conference session recently and watched something happen that I\u2019ve seen before but never quite named. Speaker after speaker \u2014 technologists, policy people, operators \u2014 kept circling the same idea without landing on it. One talked about detection speed for biological threats. Another about the lag between an AI capability and the regulation that addresses it. A third about why manufacturing learning curves are races, not exercises. The language was different each time. The domain was different. The variable was the same.
Time
Not as metaphor. Not as urgency rhetoric \u2014 the familiar \u201cwe need to move faster\u201d that appears in every keynote and persuades no one. Time as something more fundamental. As the binding constraint that determines whether every other capability \u2014 technical, institutional, industrial \u2014 actually functions or just exists on paper.
It struck me that for all the frameworks we\u2019ve been building in this space \u2014 responsible innovation, governance architecture, reindustrialization strategy \u2014 we\u2019ve been designing for capability, authority, and proportionality. We have not been designing for time.
The podcast audio was AI-generated using Google\u2019s NotebookLM.
There\u2019s a distinction worth drawing carefully, because I think conflating two ideas has made this problem invisible.
Speed is a metric. You can measure it, optimize it, benchmark it. Organizations talk about speed constantly. Move fast. Accelerate. Reduce cycle time. Speed is the thing you improve within a system that already works.
Time is the medium in which all your systems must compose. It is not how fast you go \u2014 it is whether the systems that must coordinate with each other are operating on compatible timescales. A biosecurity detection system that identifies a threat in twelve hours is useless if the interpretation infrastructure takes twelve weeks and the policy execution mechanism takes twelve months. Each component might be excellent on its own terms. The failure is temporal \u2014 they don\u2019t compose.
Engineers have a name for this. Temporal coupling: when two systems that must coordinate operate on fundamentally different timescales, the system breaks. Not because any individual component failed, but because time itself became the fault line.
I want to trace this mechanism across several domains, because I think it explains more about why our current systems are failing than any capability deficit does.
I wrote about governance latency in these pages earlier this year \u2014 the gap between when a system behaves in a new way and when governance responds. I described three components: detection latency, interpretation latency, execution latency. I still believe in that framework. But I\u2019ve started to think I was being too polite about what it actually describes.
Governance latency is not a bug in governance. It is a temporal architecture \u2014 one that was designed, intentionally or not, for a world that moved at a different pace. Congressional hearing calendars. Notice-and-comment rulemaking periods. Interagency coordination cycles. These are not merely slow. They operate on a fundamentally different timescale than the technologies they govern. The gap between those timescales is not inconvenient. It is, itself, a space where outcomes are determined before the formal process even begins.
The nation or institution that understands this \u2014 that treats temporal alignment as a design variable rather than an operational annoyance \u2014 gains an advantage that no amount of capability can offset. Because capability without temporal coordination is potential energy that never converts to kinetic. It sits in reserve, impressive and inert, while the clock runs.
Consider biomanufacturing \u2014 a domain I\u2019ve been writing about in this series.
The circles-and-spirals thesis is, at its core, a temporal argument. The circle traps organizations in a time loop: no production experience means no yield data means no capital means no facilities means no production experience. The loop is self-reinforcing because each node operates on a timescale that prevents the next node from activating.
Capital allocation cycles are quarterly. Facility construction takes years. Workforce development takes a generation. Yield improvement requires thousands of production hours that nobody can access because the facilities don\u2019t exist.
The spiral breaks the circle not by eliminating time, but by synchronizing it. Government demand signals compress the capital decision. Pre-built infrastructure compresses the facility timeline. Science investment steepens the yield curve so fewer production hours are needed to reach viability. The spiral is not faster in any simple sense \u2014 it is temporally coherent. Every node operates on a timescale compatible with the others.
Wright\u2019s Law, the principle that costs decline predictably with cumulative production, is a temporal claim wearing an economic costume. It says: the first mover in production will be the lowest-cost producer, and the gap will compound with time. China is further down the biomanufacturing learning curve than the United States. Every year that gap persists is not a static disadvantage. It is a temporal one \u2014 the curve steepens for whoever is on it and flattens for whoever is not.
Biosecurity is perhaps the most visceral expression of this thesis.
A biological threat does not wait for interpretation. It replicates on its own timescale \u2014 exponential, indifferent to institutional calendars. The difference between containment and catastrophe is not capability. We have the sequencing technology, the surveillance infrastructure, the countermeasure platforms. The difference is temporal coordination. Can you detect, interpret, decide, and act within the doubling time of the threat?
I think about this in my work at Vigilance. The entire architecture of biological threat preparedness is, when you strip away the organizational charts and capability matrices, an exercise in temporal engineering.
You are building systems whose purpose is to compress the gap between event and response to something smaller than the gap between event and consequence.
That\u2019s the design requirement. Everything else is decoration.
Here is where I want to push further than the conference session went, further than most strategy frameworks go.
We tend to treat time as a dimension \u2014 the passive background against which things happen. Decisions take time. Manufacturing takes time. Governance takes time. Time is the water everything swims in.
But the more accurate framing \u2014 the one that explains why temporally misaligned systems keep failing in predictable ways \u2014 is that time is a domain. A space in which advantage can be built, contested, and lost. A domain that requires its own strategy, its own architecture, its own design principles.
If you accept that reframing, certain things follow.
Temporal advantage is designable. You can build organizations, governance structures, and industrial systems that are optimized for temporal coherence \u2014 where the decision cycle, the implementation timeline, and the environment\u2019s rate of change are deliberately aligned.
Temporal disadvantage is structural, not accidental. When a governance system operates on a decadal timescale while the technologies it governs evolve on a monthly one, that is not a speed problem to be solved with urgency. It is an architectural mismatch that requires redesign.
Temporal literacy becomes a core competency. The ability to read a system and identify where temporal misalignment is the binding constraint \u2014 rather than capability, authority, or resources \u2014 becomes as important as technical expertise or policy knowledge.
This is where the argument becomes operational, and where I think builders, policymakers, and capital allocators need to pay close attention.
If time is a domain, then every strategy has a temporal architecture \u2014 whether or not the strategist designed one. The question is not whether your organization operates within time. The question is whether you\u2019ve deliberately engineered how your organization relates to time.
For builders in frontier technology: the competitive advantage is not always the best technology. It is often the technology that reaches operational deployment first and begins descending the learning curve while competitors are still optimizing in the lab. This is Wright\u2019s Law generalized. The first mover in production compounds an advantage that the better-but-later entrant may never overcome. Time on the curve is the asset. Everything else is a bet that time will be forgiving. It usually isn\u2019t.
For policymakers: governance latency is not a staffing problem or a willpower problem. It is a temporal design problem. The question is not \u201chow do we make government faster\u201d \u2014 it is \u201chow do we build governance architectures whose operating timescale matches the domain they govern?\u201d In some cases, that means pre-authorization frameworks that act before the crisis arrives. In others, it means modular governance that can be updated without rewriting the entire regulatory structure. In all cases, it means taking temporal architecture as seriously as institutional authority.
For capital allocators: patience is a temporal strategy, not a virtue. The patient capital that biomanufacturing requires is not charity \u2014 it is an investment in temporal alignment, giving the learning curve enough time to generate the yields that make the economics work. The impatient capital that demands returns on quarterly timescales is not merely unhelpful. It is temporally incompatible with the problem it claims to be solving.
I keep returning to that conference session. The speakers kept naming symptoms \u2014 speed, latency, urgency, readiness \u2014 without naming the condition. The condition is that time is the domain we have not yet learned to design for. We design capability. We design authority. We design architecture. We rarely ask the question that precedes all of them: does this system\u2019s temporal structure match the temporal structure of the problem it exists to solve?
Biological threats replicate on exponential timescales. AI capabilities advance on compressed developmental ones. Governance responds on bureaucratic ones. Manufacturing compounds on production-volume ones. None of these timescales are wrong in isolation. All of them are wrong together \u2014 because nobody designed the temporal coherence between them.
At the frontier of technology, the experiment is not whether we can build fast enough. It is whether we can think in time \u2014 designing systems where the pace of understanding, the pace of building, and the pace of governing are, for once, composed into the same score.
\u2014 Titus
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/47h2h-8jh65","funding_references":null,"guid":"194133957","id":"e9e9640f-b851-4df7-b089-1bfb98e8f7ef","image":"https://substack-video.s3.amazonaws.com/video_upload/post/194133957/7ceede35-dcc8-4dc3-b1b5-08f472cb3da3/transcoded-1776129583.png","images":[{"alt":"clear hour glass beside pink flowers","height":"4480","sizes":"100vw","src":"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1518281420975-50db6e5d0a97?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wzMDAzMzh8MHwxfHNlYXJjaHwyMnx8dGltZXxlbnwwfHx8fDE3NzYwOTgwMDh8MA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=1080","srcset":"https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1518281420975-50db6e5d0a97?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wzMDAzMzh8MHwxfHNlYXJjaHwyMnx8dGltZXxlbnwwfHx8fDE3NzYwOTgwMDh8MA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=1080, https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1518281420975-50db6e5d0a97?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wzMDAzMzh8MHwxfHNlYXJjaHwyMnx8dGltZXxlbnwwfHx8fDE3NzYwOTgwMDh8MA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=1080, https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1518281420975-50db6e5d0a97?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wzMDAzMzh8MHwxfHNlYXJjaHwyMnx8dGltZXxlbnwwfHx8fDE3NzYwOTgwMDh8MA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=1080, https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1518281420975-50db6e5d0a97?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wzMDAzMzh8MHwxfHNlYXJjaHwyMnx8dGltZXxlbnwwfHx8fDE3NzYwOTgwMDh8MA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=1080","width":"6720"}],"indexed":true,"indexed_at":1776159717,"language":"en","parent_doi":null,"published_at":1776159074,"reference":[],"registered_at":0,"relationships":[],"rid":"tktk7-h3784","status":"active","summary":"Every capability, every governance framework, every industrial strategy eventually reduces to the same unspoken variable \u2014 and almost nobody is designing for it.","tags":["Policy"],"title":"Ep 63 - The Tempo Thesis","updated_at":1776159074,"url":"https://www.connectedideasproject.com/p/ep-63-the-tempo-thesis","version":"v1"},{"abstract":null,"archive_url":null,"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Bezuidenhout","given":"Louise","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4328-3963"}],"blog":{"archive_collection":24082,"archive_host":null,"archive_prefix":null,"archive_timestamps":null,"authors":[{"name":"Leiden Madtrics","url":null}],"canonical_url":null,"category":"socialScience","community_id":"d8304840-75c2-4164-bc37-ec879c4f065b","created_at":1682899200,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Leiden Madtrics","doi_as_guid":false,"favicon":null,"feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/atom/","filter":null,"funding":null,"generator":"Other","generator_raw":"Other","home_page_url":"https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/","id":"a0920819-e194-4514-bca4-5f0837e10c51","indexed":false,"issn":null,"language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","mastodon":null,"prefix":"10.59350","registered_at":1728549179,"relative_url":null,"ror":"https://ror.org/027bh9e22","secure":true,"slug":"leidenmadtrics","status":"active","subfield":"1804","subfield_validated":null,"title":"Leiden Madtrics","updated_at":1776154133.084856,"use_api":null,"use_mastodon":false,"user_id":"ae88df6b-e1cf-4743-86a8-c032659cf5d2"},"blog_name":"Leiden Madtrics","blog_slug":"leidenmadtrics","content_html":"Determining the quality, value, impact, or merit of research is no easy task. Results can vary considerably depending on how these criteria are defined, what elements are assessed and how the assessments are used. Research continues to be evaluated around the world at individual, institutional and national levels, yet considerable discussion remains as to what strategies effectively address the complexity of the task.\u00a0\u00a0
The Strategy Evaluation Protocol (SEP) is a central element of research evaluation in the Netherlands. Focused at a research unit level, the SEP moves away from the exclusive use of quantitative indicators, emphasising instead \"informed peer review\" and qualitative assessment as key elements of evaluation. This protocol is updated every six years, and since 2021, it has focused on the research unit's own strategy as well as on formative and development-oriented evaluation.\u00a0
In March 2026, an update to the protocol was released for the SEP 2027-2033. In addition to its primary focus on quality, relevance and viability, the updated SEP also considers four key elements, namely PhD policy and training, Open Science, responsible research practices, and academic culture.
The focus on Open Science in the SEP offers an exciting opportunity to enrich the impact of the Dutch National Open Science Programme 2030 (NPOS2030) by embedding Open Science more firmly within research unit strategic planning and action. Nonetheless, it must be recognised that realising this ambition is not without challenges.\u00a0
The first reflects a capacity issue. The roll-out of Open Science in the Netherlands is still a work-in-progress and many research units are still at the beginning stages of their journey towards openness. This can mean that research units may struggle to articulate Open Science in their strategic planning and research trajectories.\u00a0
The second is an issue of scoping. The NPOS2030 was intentionally aligned to the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science that outlines a very ambitious framing of Open Science. This has moved conversations beyond the more \u201ctraditional\u201d framings of Open Science (Open Access and Open Data) to include a wide range of additional areas, such as Citizen Science, Open Software, and public engagement. While the broad remit of Open Science offers considerable opportunity, it can be overwhelming for research units to identify where and how to direct their efforts.
The third issue relates to evidence. Within the SEP protocol, the qualitative narrative is accompanied by a variety of indicators. These indicators support the narrative and enable reviewers to delve deeply into the outputs and outcomes of the research unit. It is well-recognised that monitoring and evaluation of Open Science is in its infancy, and many of the elements outlined in the UNESCO Recommendation do not have established approaches for monitoring. This can cause considerable confusion within research units, particularly if approaches to record evidence are not put in place at the beginning of the SEP cycle.\u00a0
In recognition of these challenges, at Leiden University we are exploring an Open Science monitoring strategy designed to assist research units in developing their SEP self-assessment. This approach takes inspiration from the Finnish approach to Open Science monitoring, namely the Readiness Assessment Framework (RAF) tool. A RAF is a self-evaluation tool for services, policies and practices (see below). Taking a sequential approach to Open Science, a RAF guides research units through the steps needed to embed Open Science as a research culture while aligning with national policies on Open Science. The purpose of the tool is to assist research units in identifying gaps and opportunities and to monitor their progress.
Representation of the Finnish RAF
The Finnish RAF focuses on five areas that reflect the Finnish national Open Science approach, namely culture of Open Scholarship, evaluation, education, research data, and publications. Within each area a number of subcategories offer clear guidance as to what would constitute a minimal and optimal level of openness. The Finnish RAF also offers a heterogeneous list of examples of evidence that could be used to further illustrate each category. An example of this is shown below.
The wholesale adoption of the Finnish RAF in the Netherlands is, of course, not practical due to differences in the research ecosystems and approaches to Open Science. Nonetheless, the adaption of the methodology and approach for use in a Dutch context offers an exciting opportunity for the Netherlands and the evolution of the SEP. In response to the first concern outlined above, RAFs offer structured roadmapping that supports the SEP approach of strategic planning. This can help research units starting out in their journey toward openness.
The modular nature of the RAF enables new indicators to be added and the model to be scaled. This addresses the second concern above relating to the broad scope of the NPOS2030 and the UNESCO Recommendation. A RAF can evolve with Open Science in the Netherlands, rather than acting as a straightjacket.
Third, and perhaps most exciting, the use of a RAF in the SEP will support the structuring of the narrative self-assessments relating to Open Science. This offers an opportunity to better utilise SEP self-assessments into national strategies to monitor Open Science. Most pertinently, it enables Dutch Open Science monitoring to move beyond traditional approaches that simply count open research products, to better visualise and reward practices and processes that open up and strengthen the entire research lifecycle.
Header picture by Patrick Perkins\u00a0on Unsplash.
DOI:
Tyner et al. (2026) recently reported the results of a major study investigating the replicability of claims in the social and behavioural sciences. They found a replication rate of 55.1% of 274 claims. But is this replication rate too low, too high, or just right?
They concluded that their findings are consistent with prior work that has found \u201clow observed replication success rates\u201d (Tyner et al., 2026, p. 143). But how do we know that an observed replication rate is \u201clow\u201d? As I\u2019ve explained previously, \u201cit is unclear how replication rates can be judged to be \u2018low\u2019 and in need of improvement in the absence of clear targets for \u2018acceptable\u2019 replication rates. Logically, this reasoning represents an incomplete comparison\u201d (Rubin, 2023, p. 4). We need to consider relevant benchmarks against which to judge observed replication rates. Here, I consider two possibilities: the optimal replication rate and the expected replication rate.
One benchmark that might be used to establish whether an observed replication rate is \u201clow\u201d is the optimal replication rate. However, defining an optimal replication rate is problematic because it leads us to ask: \u201coptimal for what purposes?\u201d and different replication rates may be optimal for different purposes. To illustrate, I consider how different stages of research and different philosophies of science might warrant different optimal replication rates.
The optimal replication rate needs to balance the desire to learn from our mistakes in the face of scientific ignorance with the desire to produce reliable and trustworthy scientific knowledge that can be used by society. This balance is often skewed more towards learning in the earlier, discovery and exploration stages of a research topic and more towards consolidation and verification in later, more applied and translational stages. As Nosek et al. (2022) explained:
It would be possible to achieve near-100% replicability by adopting an extremely conservative research agenda that studies phenomena that are already well understood or have extremely high prior odds. Such an approach would produce nearly zero research progress. Science exists to expand the boundaries of knowledge. In this pursuit, false starts and promising leads that turn out to be dead ends are inevitable. The occurrence of nonreplicability should decline with the maturation of a research topic, but a healthy, theoretically generative research enterprise will include nonreplicable findings. (p. 730)
Hence, optimal replication rates are likely to be lower in the earlier exploratory stages of a research topic than in the later confirmatory stages that are intended to translate findings into real-world applications.
The tension between learning and confirming is also apparent in different philosophies of science. Hence, the optimal replication rate may also be lower in theory-centric falsificationist philosophies of science than in effect-centric confirmatory philosophies. In falsificationist philosophies, (reproducible) replication failures may entail logical refutations of theories that fuel scientific discovery and progress (Popper, 1966, p. 285; Rubin, 2025, p. 11). As Popper (1962) explained, \u201crefutations have often been regarded as establishing the failure of a scientist, or at least of [their] theory. It should be stressed that this is an inductivist error. Every refutation should be regarded as a great success\u201d (p. 243). Accordingly, high quality, reproducible replication failures should be seen as causes for celebration rather than grounds for a replication \u201ccrisis.\u201d As Mayrhofer et al. (2024) explained:
From this [Popperian] perspective, the replication crisis is not a crisis at all but rather a process that increases our knowledge by demonstrating that certain theories are false or at least cannot be corroborated by repeated observations, increasing their probability of being false. (p. 4)
Similarly, from a Lakatosian perspective, replication failures may inspire theory development by suggesting the presence of unrecognized moderators and boundary conditions (e.g., Lakatos, 1978; Rubin, 2025). As Nosek (quoted in Jones, 2026) explained:
Replication, when it fails, is theoretically generative. It\u2019s like: \u201cWait a second, did we change something that we didn\u2019t realize was important? We had no reason to expect something different here, but something different happened. Now we have a mystery.\u201d And that\u2019s where discovery happens. (p. 38)
In contrast, effect-centric confirmatory philosophies focus more on establishing the existence of phenomena vis-\u00e0-vis their replicability before proceeding to testing theories that explain those phenomena. As Nak et al. (2026) explained:
The massive replication work that has ensued in the wake of the reproducibility crisis (Nosek et al., 2022) in many ways already exemplifies this turn towards phenomena, as it clearly was never aimed at theory testing but simply at assessing the replicability of psychological effects. For instance, the Open Science Collaboration (2015) set out to estimate the replicability of \u201ceffects\u201d rather than to confirm or falsify theories. (p. 24)
From this effect-centric perspective, replication failures cast doubt on the existence of phenomena. Hence, the optimal replication rate should be higher under a confirmatory philosophy of \u201cphenomena consolidation\u201d (Nak et al., 2026) than under a falsificationist philosophy of theory development (Lakatos, 1978; Popper, 1962, 1966). (See also Devezer & Buzbas\u2019, 2023, distinction between \u201cresult-centric\u201d and \u201cmodel-centric\u201d science and Feest\u2019s, 2024, distinction between \u201ceffect-seekers\u201d and \u201ccomplexity mongers.\u201d)
In summary, the optimal replication rate may vary depending on both (a) stage of research and (b) philosophy of science. In particular, optimal replication rates should be lower in discovery and exploratory stages of research and research that follows a theory-centric falsificationist approach but higher in applied and translational stages and research that follows an effect-centric confirmatory approach.
Given its variability and ambiguity, it is unclear how to formally specify the optimal replication rate. Indeed, Tyner et al. (2026) concluded that \u201cthe optimal replicability rate is not known\u201d (p. 148; see also Nosek, quoted in Fox, 2026). In other words, it is unclear what the observed replication rate should be. Instead, we can consider what people expect the replication rate to be. We can then use this expected replication rate as a benchmark against which to judge whether the observed replication rate is too low, too high, or consistent with expectations. For example, commenting on Tyner et al.\u2019s (2026) work, Nosek (quoted in Jones, 2026) assumed that scientists would be surprised by a lower than expected replication rate:
We don\u2019t know what the optimal level of replicability is....The important part is not the number \u2014 it\u2019s that scientists say \u201cwow, I had presumed that published findings are more repeatable than they are.\u201d (p. 38)
Indeed, several commentators have argued that the replication crisis occurred because observed replication rates are markedly lower than \u201cexpected or desired\u201d (Nosek et al., 2022, p. 724; see also Munaf\u00f2 et al., 2017, p. 1; Open Science Collaboration, 2015, p. 7). Hence, as Tyner et al. (2026) explained, \u201cthe problem to solve is not unreplicability per se, it is overconfidence\u201d (p. 148; see also Nosek, quoted in Fox, 2026).
Consistent with this view, there is evidence that researchers tend to overestimate replication rates. For example, Table 1 provides data from six studies that have used prediction markets and forecasting surveys to estimate expected replication rates and compare them with observed replication rates.
Table 1 shows that people tend to overestimate replication rates. Importantly, however, the extent of this overestimation does not appear to be particularly extreme. On average, people estimate the replication rate to be around 13 percentage points higher than the observed replication rate (i.e., ~63% rather than ~50%). It is debatable whether a 13-point overestimation represents sufficient grounds for a replication \u201ccrisis\u201d (Rubin, 2023, p. 4).
It is also important to appreciate that the expected replication rate reflects people\u2019s beliefs, and that their beliefs may not represent the optimal replication rate for scientific purposes. Hence, a discrepancy between the observed and expected replication rate does not necessarily imply that we need to change our research practices. Indeed, if community expectations are substantially different from both observed and optimal replication rates, then they will be not only unrealistic but also suboptimal! Hence, we end up in a situation in which (a) the optimal replication rate is unclear and (b) the expected replication rate may be misleading.
is one of the authors of the Tyner et al. (2026) paper. He recently shared his thoughts about Tyner et al.\u2019s (2026) work on BlueSky (Haber, 2026, April 10). His comments reflect some of the issues discussed here:
Question now becomes \u201cdoes the replication rate differ from what people *expect* it would be.\u201d
There\u2019s definitely a problem if those don\u2019t match, but unclear what the problem is.
There is no obviously correct benchmark for what that replication rate should be (and be skeptical of anyone who is sure they know what it is).
Heck, with all the time I\u2019ve spent in this work, I am still truly not sure if/how much we should be bothered by the rates found.
The typical response to the replication crisis has been to design and promote changes to research practices to try to increase observed replication rates. This response implies that the replication crisis is a methodological problem, and that methodological solutions are required to increase observed replication rates to a more optimal level. However, if the optimal replication rate is unknown, then the success or failure of this response will be unclear. Again, the problem here is one of a logically incomplete comparison (Rubin, 2023, p. 4).
An alternative perspective is to view the replication crisis as a problem of researchers\u2019 collective \u201coverconfidence\u201d (Tyner et al., 2026, p. 148) caused by their unrealistically high expected replication rates. This more social psychological perspective avoids the problem of an incomplete comparison because we are able to measure both observed and expected replication rates. It also implies an alternative solution to the replication crisis. Specifically, the replication crisis can be addressed by not only increasing the observed replication rate but also decreasing the expected replication rate. From this perspective, it may be helpful to educate scientists, the public, and the media that (a) there is no clear optimal replication rate and (b) a ~50% replication rate is realistic.
Some may balk at the proposal to reduce people\u2019s expected replication rate because they view unexpectedly low replication rates as implying that original studies suffer from low quality methodology and questionable research practices that produced false positive results. However, it is worth referring to Tyner et al.\u2019s (2026) sage advice when interpreting replication failures and successes:
Replication failures are not necessarily due to the original findings having low credibility. Low replication rates can also be due to false negatives, poorly designed replications, selecting only positive results for replication, and differences between original and replication studies that are initially perceived as unimportant. (p. 143)
A single failure to replicate does not justify concluding that the original research was wrong \u2026. Even if the replication appeared to be testing the same research question, there could be differences in the methodology, sample or context that are unrecognized moderators of the outcome. In addition, even if the replication researchers were diligent in conducting the research, there could be unrecognized errors or flaws in implementing the replication protocol that interfered with observing the outcome. (p. 147)
A single successful replication does not justify concluding that the original research was correct \u2026. The replicability of an effect is not the same as the validity of its interpretation. Original and replication studies may share confounds, faulty measures or other design weaknesses that produce replicable, but misinterpreted, outcomes. (p. 148)
In summary, it\u2019s difficult to argue that replications rates are suboptimal because it is unclear what the optimal replication rate should be. It\u2019s easier to argue that replication rates are lower than expected, but the evidence suggests that they are only around 13 percentage points below community expectations, and it\u2019s unclear whether this degree of discrepancy is problematic, especially given that community expectations may not be the best guide for scientific practice. Consequently, the rationale for a replication \u201ccrisis\u201d remains debatable. Finally, if the \u201ccrisis\u201d is conceived as a problem of collective \u201coverconfidence\u201d (Tyner et al., 2026, p. 148) rather than inadequate methodology, then it may be more effective to adjust community expectations to better reflect realistic replication rates. In other words, the replication crisis may serve as a valuable lesson in scientific humility.
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Forsell, E., Ho, T. H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., ... & Wu, H. (2016). Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science, 351(6280), 1433\u20131436. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf091
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T. H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., ... & Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637-644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z
Chandrashekar, S. P., Viganola, D., Dreber, A., Johannesson, M., Pfeiffer, T., Siegel, A., & Feldman, G. (2026). Using prediction markets and forecasting surveys to predict 28 replication outcomes of classic articles in social psychology and judgement and decision making. Royal Society Open Science, 13(1), 250377. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.250377
Devezer, B., & Buzbas, E. O. (2023). Rigorous exploration in a model-centric science via epistemic iteration. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 12(2), 189\u2013194. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000121
Dreber, A., Pfeiffer, T., Almenberg, J., Isaksson, S., Wilson, B., Chen, Y., ... & Johannesson, M. (2015). Using prediction markets to estimate the reproducibility of scientific research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(50), 15343\u201315347. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516179112
Feest, U. (2024). What is the replication crisis a crisis of? Philosophy of Science, 91(5), 1361-1371. https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2024.2
Fox, J. (2026, April 11). When being right less than half the time\u2026is fine. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-04-11/when-being-right-less-than-half-the-time-is-fine
Gordon, M., Viganola, D., Dreber, A., Johannesson, M., & Pfeiffer, T. (2021). Predicting replicability\u2014Analysis of survey and prediction market data from large-scale forecasting projects. PLOS One, 16(4), e0248780. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248780
Jones, N. (2026, April 2). Why science has a credibility problem \u2014 and how to address it. Nature, 652, 36. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00972-4
Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes (Philosophical Papers, Volume I). Cambridge University Press.
Mayrhofer, R., B\u00fcchner, I. C., & Hevesi, J. (2024). The quantitative paradigm and the nature of the human mind. The replication crisis as an epistemological crisis of quantitative psychology in view of the ontic nature of the psyche. Frontiers in Psychology, 15:1390233. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1390233
Mody, F., Wilkinson, D. P., Fraser, H., Fidler, F., Bishop, M. M., Burgman, M., \u2026 Pfeiffer, T. (2026). Large-scale human predictions of the replicability of published social and behavioural science papers \u2013 a multi- study analysis. MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/vgyed_v1
Munaf\u00f2, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., ... & Ioannidis, J. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
Nak, J., van Dongen, N. N. N., Woodward, J. F., Scheel, A. M., Haig, B., van Bork, R., Blanken, T. F., de Ron, J., Finnemann, A., Haslbeck, J., Francken, J., Eronen, M., van Lissa, C. J., Dijstelbloem, H., & Borsboom, D. (2026). Establishing psychological phenomena: An alternative methodological perspective on scientific practice. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rh9cu_v1
Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., ... & Vazire, S. (2022). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 719\u2013748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Popper, K. R. (1962). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge.
Popper, K. R. (1966). Some comments on truth and the growth of knowledge. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, 44, 285-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0049-237X(09)70596-8
Rubin, M. (2023). Questionable metascience practices. Journal of Trial and Error, 4(1), 5\u201320. https://doi.org/10.36850/mr4
Rubin, M. (2025). The replication crisis is less of a \u201ccrisis\u201d in Lakatos\u2019 philosophy of science than it is in Popper\u2019s. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 15(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-024-00629-x
Tyner, A. H., Abatayo, A. L., Daley, M., et al. (2026). Investigating the replicability of the social and behavioural sciences. Nature, 652, 143\u2013150. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-10078-y
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/awhsb-3jy60","funding_references":null,"guid":"194159370","id":"d9f0b626-9f67-4981-adfb-e82b543717a3","image":"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png","images":[{"height":"294.2822802197802","sizes":"100vw","src":"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png","srcset":"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,w_424,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,w_848,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,w_1272,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png","width":"725"},{"src":"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png"},{"src":"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gKfe!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ad843c5-745d-4e32-b400-9ddaa32d23c1_1456x591.png"}],"indexed":true,"indexed_at":1776154604,"language":"en","parent_doi":null,"published_at":1776153972,"reference":[{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf091"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.250377"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000121"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516179112"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2024.2"},{"id":"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-04-11/when-being-right-less-than-half-the-time-is-fine"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248780"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00972-4"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1390233"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/vgyed_v1"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rh9cu_v1"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S0049-237X(09)70596-8"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.36850/mr4"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-024-00629-x"},{"id":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-10078-y"},{"id":"https://markrubin.substack.com/subscribe"},{"id":"https://markrubin.substack.com/p/is-a-55-replication-rate-too-low?action=share"}],"registered_at":0,"relationships":[],"rid":"9jwp6-vx087","status":"active","summary":"Tyner et al.","tags":["Replication Crisis","Metascience","False Positives","Popper","Philosophy Of Science"],"title":"Is a 55% Replication Rate Too Low, Too High, or Just Right?","updated_at":1776153972,"url":"https://markrubin.substack.com/p/is-a-55-replication-rate-too-low","version":"v1"},{"abstract":"Bibliotheken sind heute, das ist wohl unbestritten, offene Orte, die eine hohe Aufenthaltsqualit\u00e4t anstreben. Schlagworte wie \u201cDritter Ort\u201d, \u201c24 Stunden Bibliothek\u201d, \u201cOpen Library\u201d sind in Bibliotheksstrategien und Berichten \u00fcber Bibliotheken verbreitet. Bibliotheken wollen, dass viele Menschen zu ihnen kommen, ihre Angebote nutzen und vor Ort verweilen. Und das passiert auch.","archive_url":null,"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Schuldt","given":"Karsten"}],"blog":{"archive_collection":24083,"archive_host":null,"archive_prefix":null,"archive_timestamps":null,"authors":null,"canonical_url":null,"category":"otherSocialSciences","community_id":"eee4904d-fc13-4753-a9a0-9c38082ff069","created_at":1706811303,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"weblogs","doi_as_guid":false,"favicon":null,"feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://libreas.wordpress.com/feed/atom","filter":null,"funding":null,"generator":"WordPress.com","generator_raw":"WordPress.com","home_page_url":"https://libreas.wordpress.com","id":"623981d8-f442-4db2-a46e-7a553009fbec","indexed":true,"issn":"1860-7950","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","mastodon":null,"prefix":"10.59350","registered_at":1722592979,"relative_url":null,"ror":null,"secure":true,"slug":"libreas","status":"active","subfield":"3309","subfield_validated":null,"title":"LIBREAS.Library Ideas","updated_at":1776154133.865697,"use_api":true,"use_mastodon":false,"user_id":"36565831-b661-4f85-8e3a-fd190dd746a8"},"blog_name":"LIBREAS.Library Ideas","blog_slug":"libreas","content_html":"\nBibliotheken sind heute, das ist wohl unbestritten, offene Orte, die eine hohe Aufenthaltsqualit\u00e4t anstreben. Schlagworte wie “Dritter Ort”, \u201c24 Stunden Bibliothek”, “Open Library” sind in Bibliotheksstrategien und Berichten \u00fcber Bibliotheken verbreitet. Bibliotheken wollen, dass viele Menschen zu ihnen kommen, ihre Angebote nutzen und vor Ort verweilen. Und das passiert auch. Menschen genie\u00dfen es, Bibliotheken zu besuchen und dort auch eine lange Zeit zu bleiben: zum Lernen, zum Spielen, zum Reden, zum Treffen und zu vielem mehr.
\n\n\n\nUnd hier kommt der Genuss ins Spiel. Zu all dem geh\u00f6rt n\u00e4mlich auch, dass Menschen in Bibliotheken Bed\u00fcrfnissen nachgehen wie Essen, Trinken oder Schlafen. In vielen F\u00e4llen haben Bibliotheken das auch heute schon integriert. Bibliothekscaf\u00e9s, Getr\u00e4nkeautomaten, Sofas und Lounges sind weit verbreitet, sowohl in Wissenschaftlichen als auch \u00d6ffentlichen Bibliotheken. Einzelne Bibliotheken bieten, auch wenn sie es nicht unbedingt bewerben, sogar Orte an, die explizit f\u00fcr kurze Schlafpausen gedacht sind.
\n\n\n\nDie Ausgabe #49 der LIBREAS wollen wir nutzen, um diese Aspekte des Bibliotheksalltags in den Mittelpunkt zu stellen. Wir wollen von euch, liebe Kolleg:innen, wissen, was Nutzer:innen in euren Bibliotheken machen. Was beobachtet ihr? Wie nehmt ihr das wahr, wie nehmen das andere Nutzende wahr? Hat sich in den letzten Jahren etwas ver\u00e4ndert? Habt ihr den Raum deshalb neu gestaltet, neue Services entwickelt, die Nutzungsordnung, die \u00d6ffnungszeiten oder anderes angepasst?
\n\n\n\nGenuss hinterl\u00e4sst aber auch, wie wir wissen, Spuren. In einigen Bibliotheken kommt es zu Verm\u00fcllung durch Packungen von Lieferdiensten, durch Einwegbecher, Benutzungsspuren und \u00fcberm\u00e4\u00dfigen Verschlei\u00df. Gleichzeitig zeigt diese intensive Nutzung, dass Bibliotheken ihr Ziel erreichen: Menschen nutzen den Ort Bibliothek gerne, lange und viel. Die Frage, die sich f\u00fcr die Bibliotheken deshalb wohl stellt, ist: Sollten sie das aktiv gestalten, einfach laufen lassen oder gar versuchen, es doch irgendwie einzuschr\u00e4nken?
\n\n\n\n\u00dcbergeordnet kann man diesen Themenkomplex nicht nur mit Einzelberichten angehen, sondern sich zum Beispiel auch fragen, ob diese genussvolle Nutzung von Bibliotheken eigentlich wirklich so neu ist oder einfach nur weniger beachtet und gef\u00f6rdert wurde. Beispielsweise gab es vor rund zwanzig Jahren in kanadischen Bibliotheken eine ganze Reihe von Beobachtungsstudien (unter dem Schlagwort “sweeping the floor”), die oft zu dem Ergebnis kamen, dass Essen und Trinken auch dann Hauptaktivit\u00e4t von Nutzer:innen war, wenn es verboten war. [1] Verschwimmen die Grenzen zwischen all den “Orten”, die Bibliotheken sein wollen oder waren: Lernort, Genussort, Raum der Ruhe, Kulturraum, Erlebnisst\u00e4tte? Gibt es wirklich mehr Herausforderungen oder einfach andere?
\n\n\n\nWir freuen uns \u00fcber Einreichungen ganz verschiedener Art, Formate und Themen. Fotostrecken, Erfahrungsberichte, wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen und anderes sind gleicherma\u00dfen willkommen. Einreichungen (unter Kenntnisnahme der Autor:innenhinweise) k\u00f6nnen bis zur Deadline am 30.09.2026 an das Redaktionspostfach (redaktion(at)libreas.eu) geschickt werden.
\n\n\n\nIhre / eure Redaktion LIBREAS. Library Ideas
\n\n\n\n(Berlin, Brandenburg an der Havel, Chur, G\u00f6ttingen, Karlsruhe und M\u00fcnchen)
\n\n\n\nFu\u00dfnoten:
\n\n\n\n[1] Vergleiche Given, Lisa M ; Leckie, Gloria J. (2003). “Sweepin” the library: Mapping the social activity space of the public library. In: Library & Information Science Research 25 (2003) 4: 365\u2013385, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-8188(03)00049-5.
\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/7d8jd-frq97","funding_references":null,"guid":"https://libreas.wordpress.com/?p=5406","id":"31a6de5b-b053-43de-a195-957672953a87","image":"","images":[],"indexed":true,"indexed_at":1776154608,"language":"de","parent_doi":null,"published_at":1776153327,"reference":[],"registered_at":0,"relationships":[],"rid":"hcbqs-63t08","status":"active","summary":"Bibliotheken sind heute, das ist wohl unbestritten, offene Orte, die eine hohe Aufenthaltsqualit\u00e4t anstreben. Schlagworte wie \u201cDritter Ort\u201d, \u201c24 Stunden Bibliothek\u201d, \u201cOpen Library\u201d sind in Bibliotheksstrategien und Berichten \u00fcber Bibliotheken verbreitet. Bibliotheken wollen, dass viele Menschen zu ihnen kommen, ihre Angebote nutzen und vor Ort verweilen. Und das passiert auch.","tags":["LIBREAS Call For Papers"],"title":"CFP #49: Genuss \u2014 Essen, Trinken, Schlafen in der Bibliothek","updated_at":1776153327,"url":"https://libreas.wordpress.com/2026/04/14/cfp-49-genuss-essen-trinken-schlafen-in-der-bibliothek/","version":"v1"},{"abstract":"Im Mai 2026 wird sich die Bibliothekswelt des DACH-Raums in Berlin auf der BiblioCon treffen. Dort ist auch die Redaktion der LIBREAS. Library Ideas dabei, u.a. am Donnerstag mit einem Hands-on-Lab, zu dem wir Sie herzlich einladen. Offenes Treffen am 20.05.2026 Am Abend des Mittwoch trifft sich die Redaktion LIBREAS.","archive_url":null,"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Schuldt","given":"Karsten"}],"blog":{"archive_collection":24083,"archive_host":null,"archive_prefix":null,"archive_timestamps":null,"authors":null,"canonical_url":null,"category":"otherSocialSciences","community_id":"eee4904d-fc13-4753-a9a0-9c38082ff069","created_at":1706811303,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"weblogs","doi_as_guid":false,"favicon":null,"feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://libreas.wordpress.com/feed/atom","filter":null,"funding":null,"generator":"WordPress.com","generator_raw":"WordPress.com","home_page_url":"https://libreas.wordpress.com","id":"623981d8-f442-4db2-a46e-7a553009fbec","indexed":true,"issn":"1860-7950","language":"de","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","mastodon":null,"prefix":"10.59350","registered_at":1722592979,"relative_url":null,"ror":null,"secure":true,"slug":"libreas","status":"active","subfield":"3309","subfield_validated":null,"title":"LIBREAS.Library Ideas","updated_at":1776154133.865697,"use_api":true,"use_mastodon":false,"user_id":"36565831-b661-4f85-8e3a-fd190dd746a8"},"blog_name":"LIBREAS.Library Ideas","blog_slug":"libreas","content_html":"\nIm Mai 2026 wird sich die Bibliothekswelt des DACH-Raums in Berlin auf der BiblioCon treffen. Dort ist auch die Redaktion der LIBREAS. Library Ideas dabei, u.a. am Donnerstag mit einem Hands-on-Lab, zu dem wir Sie herzlich einladen.
\n\n\n\nAm Abend des Mittwoch trifft sich die Redaktion LIBREAS. Library Ideas zu einem gemeinsamen Essen um 19 Uhr im H\u00fcftgold (Neue Bahnhofstra\u00dfe 29, 10245 Berlin) in unmittelbarer N\u00e4he des S-Bahnhof Ostkreuz, der vom Konferenzort mit der Bahn gut erreichbar ist. Dort ist nur Barzahlung m\u00f6glich.
\n\n\n\nWir laden unsere Leser*innen, Autor*innen und Interessierte ein, dazuzukommen und mit uns \u00fcber die Zeitschrift, die Bibliothekswelt und alles andere zu reden.\u00a0
\n\n\n\nZudem trefft ihr uns / treffen Sie uns auf der BiblioCon auch bei den folgenden Veranstaltungen.
\n\n\n\n