-
evaluation of research (integrity) in social and behavioral sciences, specifically psychology according to international standards like CoARA, DORA, GRADE, Equator Network guidelines
-
evaluation of good research practice
-
evaluation of questionable research and/or measurement practices (QRP & QMP)
-
evaluation of content & construct validation in educational, social, and personality research on all three phases according to APA, AERA, and NCME
-
post-publication review (COPE)
-
grant assessment
-
forensic metascience & scientometrics
General Statement in terms of automated inference statistics like LLM for any grant/integrity assessment (one strike, you’re out):
“If generative AI tools generate inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content, and that output is included in scientific works, it is the responsibility of the author(s). We have recently clarified our penalties for this. If a submission contains incontrovertible evidence that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation, this means we can’t trust anything in the paper.” Thomas G. Dietterich (arXiv), 2026
General Statement in terms of discussion sections in academic papers for any grant/integrity assessment (one strike, you’re out):
“Bias can be formally defined as the unequal correspondence between the domain of observations and the universe of generalization.” Van de Vijver & Poortinga, 2005