I dug into the evidence on the trend for oocyte preservation in my first post for the month at PLOS: Fertility Hedge Fund? Pros and Cons of Egg Banking.

Then I tackled implications of the word of the year. Post-Truth Antidote: Our Roles in Virtuous Spirals of Trust in Science.

My recent talk to the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) is now online here - I also have the slides here. And my talk at Research Reproducibility 2016 in Utah is here (apparently starts at 2716).

An update to an old Statistically Funny post about inappropriate data pooling in meta-analysis.

And belatedly caught up with a day-job-related piece in the last ever issue of Cochrane Methods [PDF] - on page 27: PubMed review methods filter and methods research support from PubMed Health.

In Open Access Week, I wrote this at Absolutely Maybe: Between Science's Secretive, Elitist Past and Open, Accessible Future. And I participated in PLOS' reddit science Ask Us Anything about open access.

Science is often a family story. This one is about the wonderful Andrew Herxheimer, and being an academic refugee. What Lies Beneath a Scientist's Life: A Father and Son Story.

And another public service announcement:

How should you handle criticism as a scientist? Has being "research parasites" turned us into "methodological terrorists"? Susan Fiske, past president of the Association of Psychological Science, launched a name-calling diatribe against internet culture and the reproducibility movement, basically. I discussed that, and came up with 6 tips for handling criticism: Flying Flak and Avoiding ad hominem Response.

Openness and Consequences: Directions in Pre- and Post-Publication Peer Review. The slides of my presentation at #COASP8 - the 8th Conference on Open Access Publishing.

Gender-bias bias: I tackle claims made that women in science have a level playing field. I wish it were true, though - hope I see it in my lifetime. At PubMed Commons: here and here. Two posts at Absolutely Maybe: This is How Research Gender-Bias Bias Works and Unpicking Cherry-Picking. And I joined the conversation at Neuroskeptic's blog on the overall issue of editor and journal responsibility for publishing damaging papers.

Meanwhile, gender and race in conference programs became a heated issue when Jonathan Eisen called out the organizers of Precision Medicine 2017 for an astonishingly male-dominated lineup: me and others interviewed by Meghana Keshavan in STAT.

Speaking of debates: I got into one at PubMed Commons with John Ioannidis on his new paper on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, disagreeing with his position - and updating my own work on this subject with more data about it, too. (This is part of that dissertation work that I'm slogging away at.)

At Statistically Funny, a fresh cartoon and look at ethics committees - plus a new page listing the statistically most popular posts! And a new post on a common trap in reports of scientific studies, especially systematic reviews: The Highs and Lows of the "Good Study".

And I expanded the Wikipedia page on the amazing Jeanne Villepreux-Power, a pioneer marine biologist: she invented the aquarium to further her experiments and studies with molluscs. Born in 1794, she was the daughter of a shoemaker who, at age 18, walked to Paris - over 400 kilometres - to strike out on her own. 

My Olympic/election edition of Absolutely Maybe: Winning! Or Is It? The Science of Winners' Fate.

Back on Statistically Funny: Cupid's Lesser Known Arrow. About the growing problem of "immortal time" or "competing risk" bias.

And I updated a Statistically Funny, too. It's not often that someone does a study that basically proves one of my cartoons is real-life, not ridiculous exaggeration! I'm gonna need a wilder cartoon! On conflicts of interest: updated post.

The risks of giving research a free pass because of the prestige of the journal it's published in: my interview for journalists with Tara Haelle at the Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ).

And I issued another public service announcement: This is not a drill. Repeat: This is *not* a drill.