ruvinskyilya.bsky.social
Lots: dev bio, neuro, social signals, worms.
Some: comments re practice of science, art, nature.
Occasionally: something funny.
69 posts
282 followers
295 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Easy choice! This is incredible.
comment in response to
post
What makes you say that the "to-be-ignored" reviews are on average detrimental to the system?
comment in response to
post
It always is!
comment in response to
post
Matt, it really was a fund read. A nice piece of classical genetic analysis that calls on diverse data types for support. What not to like?
Plus the writing - "With a bit of tedious book keeping..." Dude!
👌
comment in response to
post
You should try it at school drop off/pick up more often.
Just sayin'
comment in response to
post
I suspect all of us had reviews like this. Conservation is NOT a review criterion at the NIH. No harm in pointing that out.
A larger problem is the insane reliance on proposals to decide what should be funded.
I would trade OA publishing and players to be named later, for the system to change.
comment in response to
post
"Primarily" is a high standard to match, but I thought this study was cool.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
comment in response to
post
It depends on what the meaning of the word "species" is.
(just a reminder... Funny sayings by famous people for 100)
comment in response to
post
I am a little more positive re peer review, though I largely agree with you. But... because the current situation is unsatisfying does not mean it won't get worse if we scrap journals/review. We have recent experience - changes that were supposed to improve likely contributed to making things worse
comment in response to
post
When one is convinced that one is right, one tends to consider evidence contradicting one's conviction to be less relevant.
comment in response to
post
Best and right-est.
comment in response to
post
Are the data consistent with this take? In the 20 years of OA evangelism, the costs (per paper and overall) to investigators increased. The publishing ecosystem seems less healthy than 2-3 decades ago. Unintended consequences are a powerful force. Publishers love the current situation. Should we?
comment in response to
post
This clean and this empty?
comment in response to
post
The chocolate shriveled in the Buffalo cold if you ask me.
comment in response to
post
'tis the bagels.
comment in response to
post
Considering their evidently chimeric nature, mermaids are plausibly produced via hybridization between distantly related species. If so, they likely don't produce live offspring. Unless rarely via arcane partheno- or gynogenesis. This implies extreme longevity, ongoing hybridization, or both.
comment in response to
post
CN(G)S
comment in response to
post
More true in some parts of the country than in others.
comment in response to
post
Is 1/3 estimate due to going to "fancy" journals? In my experience, the average time in review (particularly considering bouncing from one journal to another) is well correlated with how fancy the first place of submission is. So there is value in IF - it's a predictor of time in review.
comment in response to
post
We could also have PI fantasy league. +5 points for a glam mag publication, -2 for a Not Discussed R01 application, etc etc.
I will workshop this idea in order to find a scoring scheme that alienates everyone on the planet.
comment in response to
post
Wait until people discover that same is true of Peru. Being equatorial is just not what it's cracked up to be.