52% Yes, a signiicant crisis 3% No, there is no crisis 7% Don't know 38% Yes, a slight crisis 38% Yes, a slight crisis 1,576 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED M ore than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproduc-ibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology 1 and cancer biology 2 , found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence. The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be. " But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus. "

The reaction time (RT)-based Concealed Information Test (CIT) allows for the detection of concealed knowledge (e.g., one's true identity) when the questions are presented randomly (multiple-probe protocol), but its performance is much weaker when questions are presented in blocks (e.g., first question about surname, then about birthday; single-probe protocol). The latter test protocol, however, is the preferred and sometimes even the only feasible interviewing method in real-life. In a first, preregistered, experiment (n = 363), we show that the validity of the single-probe protocol version can be substantially improved by including familiarity-related fillers: stimuli related to either familiarity (e.g., the word "FAMILIAR,") or unfamiliarity (e.g., the word "UNFAMILIAR"). We replicated these findings in a second, preregistered, experiment (n = 237), where we further found that the use of familiarityrelated fillers even improved the classic multiple-probe protocol. We recommend the use of familiarity-related filler trials for the RT-based CIT.

RT-based memory detection may provide an efficient means to assess recognition of concealed information. There is, however, considerable heterogeneity in detection rates, and we explored two potential moderators: Item Saliency and Test Protocol. Participants tried to conceal low salient (e.g., favourite colour) and high salient items (e.g., first name) and were tested with either the single-probe protocol or the multiple-probe protocol. Experiment 1 was a laboratory study with knowledgeable individuals only (n = 47). Experiment 2 was an Internet study (n = 283), that also included unknowledgeable individuals. High salient items were better detected than low salient items in the laboratory, but not the Internet study (in which the item saliency manipulation was less successful). The multiple-probe protocol outperformed the single-probe protocol in both studies. We conclude that pronounced differences in item saliency affect the validity of RT-based memory detection, and we recommend the multiple-probe protocol for RT-based memory detection. RT-based memory detection may provide an efficient means to assess recognition of concealed information. There is, however, considerable heterogeneity in detection rates, and we explored two potential moderators: Item Saliency and Test Protocol. Participants tried to conceal low salient (e.g., favourite colour) and high salient items (e.g., first name) and were tested with either the single-probe protocol or the multiple-probe protocol. Experiment 1 was a laboratory study with knowledgeable individuals only (n = 47). Experiment 2 was anInternet study (n = 283), that also included unknowledgeable individuals. High salient items were better detected than low salient items in the laboratory, but not the Internet study (in which the item saliency manipulation was less successful). The multiple-probe protocol outperformed the single-probe protocol in both studies. We conclude that pronounced differences in item saliency affect the validity of RT-based memory detection, and we recommend the multiple-probe protocol for RT-based memory detection.Max 6

There is accumulating evidence that reaction times (RTs) can be used to detect recognition of critical (e.g., crime) information. A limitation of this research base is its reliance upon small samples (average n = 24), and indications of publication bias. To advance RT-based memory detection, we report upon the development of the first web-based memory detection test. Participants in this research (Study1: n = 255; Study2: n = 262) tried to hide 2 high salient (birthday, country of origin) and 2 low salient (favourite colour, favourite animal) autobiographical details. RTs allowed to detect concealed autobiographical information, and this, as predicted, more successfully so than error rates, and for high salient than for low salient items. While much remains to be learned, memory detection 2.0 seems to offer an interesting new platform to efficiently and validly conduct RT-based memory detection research.

Pump-and-dump schemes are fraudulent price manipulations through the spread of misinformation and have been around in economic settings since at least the 1700s. With new technologies around cryptocurrency trading, the problem has intensified to a shorter time scale and broader scope. The scientific literature on cryptocurrency pumpand-dump schemes is scarce, and government regulation has not yet caught up, leaving cryptocurrencies particularly vulnerable to this type of market manipulation. This paper examines existing information on pump-and-dump schemes from classical economic literature, synthesises this with cryptocurrencies, and proposes criteria that can be used to define a cryptocurrency pump-and-dump. These pump-and-dump patterns exhibit anomalous behaviour; thus, techniques from anomaly detection research are utilised to locate points of anomalous trading activity in order to flag potential pump-and-dump activity. The findings suggest that there are some signals in the trading data that might help detect pump-and-dump schemes, and we demonstrate these in our detection system by examining several real-world cases. Moreover, we found that fraudulent activity clusters on specific cryptocurrency exchanges and coins. The approach, data, and findings of this paper might form a basis for further research into this emerging fraud problem and could ultimately inform crime prevention.