Publications & Talks



Nagel, J., Morgan, D.P., Gürsoy, N.Ç, Kern, S., Sander, S., Feld, G.B. (2023). Memory for Rewards Guides Retrieval.

Comes with open data and code at PsychArchives.

Erdfelder, E., Nagel, J., Heck, D.W., Petras, N. (2023). Uncovering null effects in null fields: the case of homeopathy.

See the associated OSF project for code and supplementary materials.

Simon Kern, S., Nagel, J., Gerchen, M.F., Guersoy, C., Meyer-Lindenberg, A., Kirsch, P., Dolan, R.J., Gais, S., Feld, G.B. (2023). Reactivation strength during cued recall is modulated by graph distance within cognitive maps.


Alizadeh Asfestani, M.*, Nagel, J.*, Beer, S., Nikpourian, G., Born, J., Feld, G.B. (2021). Unfamiliar Contexts Compared to Familiar Contexts Impair Learning in Humans.

Comes with open data and code at PsychArchives.

Dalmaijer, E.S., Van Rheede, J., Sperr, E.V. and Tkotz, J. (2021). Banana for scale: Gauging trends in academic interest by normalising publication rates to common and innocuous keywords. arXiv:2102.06418

Researchers like to justify the “growing interest” in a field with plots that show the absolute publication counts. I was annoyed every time I saw such a plot, because all of them show a steep rise – because the overall number of papers is increasing. In a tweet, I ranted about the problem (since I left Twitter shortly before it changed its name to X, the tweet sadly doesn’t exist anymore) and suggested to use a “banana for scale”, as a reference to the popular meme. The tweet surprisingly went kind of viral and also happened to land in Ediwin Dalmaijer’s Twitter feed, who then hit me up with both a software package that normalises citation counts by a keyword (e.g. “banana”) and a manuscript draft. The final result is what you can now find on the arXiv. Let’s fight absolute publication counts with bananas!

Tkotz, J., Kienhues, D., Jucks, R. and Bromme, R. (2021) Keep Calm in Heated Debates: How People Perceive Different Styles of Discourse in a Scientific Debate. Front. Educ. 5:572503. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.572503

Open data set at PsychArchives.

This paper was born out of my master thesis, where I investigated the influence of discourse style on the perception of a scientific debate. In other words: If people are presented with a scientific controversy, does it matter whether the debaters discuss the topic in a neutral way or get aggressive instead?
We presented N = 222 student teachers a newspaper article where two educational scientists debated about a fictional vocabulary learning programme. Participants either read a neutral debate scenario, or they were presented with an incivil discussion. In the uncivil condition, participants believed more strongly that the conflict between the debaters stemmed from personal reasons, and they placed less epistemic trust in the debaters. However, the discourse style did not influence participants’ perception of scientific ethos or their opinion how relevant scientific evidence is for their teaching practice.

Talks & Workshops


  • Posterblitz at the PuG 2023 – Re-examining the Impact of Sleep on False Memories


  • Pre-conference workshop at the PuG 2022 – An Introduction to R – 14|06|2021 – 15|06|2021


  • Pre-conference workshop at the PuG 2021 – An Introduction to R – 31|05|2021 – 01|06|2021