Nicola Romanò @nicolaromano@social.cleverlibre.org

Big thanks to all who contributed to these initial guidelines, including the helpful reviewers and editors!

If your on linux and you dont already know this command, check it out:

> curl wttr.in

#linux

‘According to the Retraction Watch database, the 200 authors with the most retractions account for over a quarter of all 19,000 retractions. Many of the most prolific fraudsters are senior scientists at big universities or hospitals.’

https://web.archive.org/web/20230222193709/https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/02/22/there-is-a-worrying-amount-of-fraud-in-medical-research
#fraud #science #academia

Check out our new commentary piece in @NatureEcoEvo - Better incentives are needed to reward academic software development rdcu.be/c6uMN software is critical for synthesizing & modeling big data in ecology and evolution … but current incentive structures are lacking

Ok, so there is much discussion about the alt text on pictures. My mom is legally blind. As she has gotten older her sight is almost gone. She LIVES on the computer and to say she gets excited when special attention is paid for the blind is a great understatement. Please use alt text and describe the pictures you post. Describe it as if you had your eyes closed and the only link to the outside world is what a kind soul took an extra 5 minutes to type. Come on, do it, make someone’s day.#AltText

If you see a bank account for donations to help cyclone victims, take the time to verify the account from an official published source.

For example: the recipient organisation's website.

Best not to just send money to an account repeated by social media users.

How are different scientific fields related, from a bibliometric point of view? Who writes longer papers? Uses more references? More recent references? In which fields does author position matter? Data for 20 years, all of Web of Science here:
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00246

Underlying, de-identified data can be found here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7573523

Nature news is really shooting itself in the foot - whenever I save an article and only get to reading it >14 days later, it's paywalled 🧱

Once again: Reliable information gets paywalled where misinformation is available for free.

Okay, it's been a while since I last did this, and I haven't done it on mastodon yet, so I'm going to take a deep dive into p-values for another automated GWAS. Specifically, this one, relating to "Eosinophil percentage":

https://twitter.com/SbotGwa/status/1622218396661071874

I'm interested in this particular set of results because the p-values are impossibly large, with dozens of impossibly-large p-value peaks throughout the genome.

Also, the heritability of 0.22 is within the realm of possibility for finding true links.

@ct_bergstrom Not sure what's this rant about. Nobody ever said decoder models are perfect or will have an actual understanding of the world. (Ok, maybe except for that one Google guy) OpenAI released a beta product which is incredibly helpful if used correctly but people like you just focus on its mistakes. It's like hating on cars because they can't take the stairs.

@ct_bergstrom The LLM isn't bullshitting, because it's just a machine. It has no intentionality and no mind.

The engineers and execs at tech companies who are leveraging LLMs: they are bullshitting. It's an act of malice and should be treated as such.

@ct_bergstrom Disagree. They're designed to mimic what a human would write. If they end up bullshitting it's because the models aren't good enough, not because that's what they're designed to do.

Have you got data and not sure where to deposit? Look at the helpful table by @CiminiLab for image archives.

#imageAnalysis #microscopy #openScience
---
RT @CiminiLab
@Romain_BioImage I recently generated this table, if it helps! I think the BioimageArchive would be good for images
https://twitter.com/CiminiLab/status/1616508224571641856

= Sharing peer review publicly? =

In a discussion with non-academics there was a consensus that us not sharing our peer review process publicly violates what they perceive as our scientific integrity & our commitment to them as key stakeholders and indirect funders.

My reply: yes, I agree.

Question 👇