michaelandrades.bsky.social
Scientist and no-performance cyclist.
15 posts
39 followers
49 following
Getting Started
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
You're right. Still, the text says the reviewers can opt to be acknowledged.
comment in response to
post
Recognizing reviewers is great (long overdue!), but could it backfire?
1️⃣ Discourage honest critiques due to fear of backlash?
2️⃣ Might it push reviewers to go easy, just to get name recognition, lowering the rigor?
Thoughts?
comment in response to
post
Brandon Stell puts it powerfully - and accurately: 'We value publications more than what's inside them.'
It's not something we wanted to hear, but it's something we needed to.
comment in response to
post
Great! Will you be broadcasting it online?
comment in response to
post
Belkin et al. demonstrated that male and female hearts respond differently to a preventive diet against dilated cardiomyopathy. Looks like sex matters in #cardiology, huh? See doi.org/10.1016/j.jm...
@reproducibilitea.org @redebrrepro.bsky.social @ukrepro.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
Science should reflect complexity, not oversimplify it. It's time to design experiments that embrace controlled diversity for more robust and translatable results. See doi.org/10.1371/jour...
comment in response to
post
Que análise sobre o voto e países soberanos na democracia moderna. Não tem jeito, o sistema precisa de atualização e o Miguel Lago finaliza com umas poucas ideias. Pena que não investiu mais nessa abordagem. Estou curioso para ler o A Construção de um Estado para o Século XXI. a.co/d/9pyveTN
comment in response to
post
What do you mean by 'visual sloppiness'?
comment in response to
post
I suspect it's a holdover from the era of physical paper-submitted manuscripts, when high-definition figures were printed separately—almost like an archaeological relic. Sometimes we update the system but not the practices.
comment in response to
post
Do you think state-funded institutes should be maintained to audit certain state-funded projects, or would changing policies to eliminate harmful incentives (such as overvaluing high-impact journals) be a more cost-effective way to improve science?
comment in response to
post
Before the AI era, Clark et al. completed a full systematic review in just 2 wks by dividing the process into parts and automating them.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
I’m not naive, but this demonstrates that we can improve data synthesis with better training datasets and ethical oversight.