Prasad out at FDA www.cnn.com/2026/03/06/h...
07.03.2026 00:19
👍 16
🔁 3
💬 4
📌 1
I can't speak to individual papers. but emailed appeals are considered and that is the best way to go if you feel a judgment was in error. The FAQ is always handy too www.biorxiv.org/about/FAQ
yes - there is certainly an uptick in fairly simple analyses. we've always had a policy excluding simple analyses (BLAST search etc) but what counts as simple is tricky to define and LLMs make a lot of things more simple to do... Others are seeing this too www.science.org/content/arti...
yep - and imagine if there were dozens!
Reminder: bioRxiv's "no reviews/hypotheses" policy is something we had from the outset, because it would require subjective judgments akin to peer review (and rapid dissemination seemed less critical for this type of article). The ease of generating these with LLMs make me glad we have it. 2/n
"Non-scientists with pet theories should ideally be directed away from arXiv"
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
bioRxiv: "Hypotheses without new data...are considered out of scope and will not be posted"
www.biorxiv.org/about/FAQ 1/n
"All major LLMs can be used to either commit academic fraud or facilitate junk science...guard rails are easily circumvented"
Is anyone surprised? www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Yep - it’s really nice to make the point that negative data are important but not all negative data are equal
"Null results are essential to refutations [that] correct the scientific record...but data are not a democracy" www.life-science-alliance.org/content/9/3/...
Yes, a friend just underwent this, it is an extraordinarily difficult thing to go through, and I really wish RFK Jr would stop promoting horrific, dangerous lies about the HPV vaccine
so what/where is the image with 6p on...?
Do low review response rates produce filter bubbles that bias fields? www.thetransmitter.org/publishing/l...
"little evidence retraction or editorial notice had any effect on the rate of citation"
Perpetuating signals that a paper is flawed is critical. We need to do this better systemically. In other news, people don't read papers they cite...
ht @deevybee.bsky.social
www.medrxiv.org/content/10.6...
In my simple brain, it's exciting but you need to understand the limitations: cell free systems allow you to ask q's about molecules; in vitro systems allow you to ask q's about molecules & cells; organoids may one day allow you to ask q's about mols, cells, and tissues/organs - but never organisms
"ChatGPT Health regularly misses the need for medical urgent care and frequently fails to detect suicidal ideation...we don’t know how [it] was trained...what is embedded into its models" www.theguardian.com/technology/2...
TIL the German life science portal Livivo indexes preprints www.livivo.de/app/misc/hel...
This is one of the most interesting developments as it appears that authors are now submitting preprints earlier in the process.
A reminder that our data suggests that the best time to post is approx 1 month prior to journal submission (which ~30% now are).
Yep - though GitHub is owned by Microsoft and people can remove stuff whenever they want…
When you make the cover of a high-impact journal...
the problem with email is it does not help readers. the hope is that comments can also help readers understand the strengths and weaknesses of a paper. I was just at a seminar where some of the most interesting stuff came in the Q&A. it would be great to replicate that online.
bsky.app/profile/agro...
the other challenge is maintaining those interactive formats. when this has been tried in the past, a few years alter those interactive things don't work (sadly as some of us predicted). contrast that with research data repositories, which do (for the most part) becasue the community sees value.
my feeling was data first, but my instinct is not to be prescriptive and instead build asynchrony in as a feature since it might work different for different fields, data types, etc.
This is where I think the concept of an Addendum or Follow-Up article is nice - kind of is best of both worlds. I introduced this at a journal I created years ago - not very well indexed by PubMed though (which is a problem, as ever).
💯
That ‘constellation’ model in which repos and servers collaborate to support the aspects of the ecosystem they do best is articulated here. One thing that is needed is better mapping of the graph, discovery. 3/n openrxiv.org/openrxiv-day/
IMO we can have our cake and eat it by using the Web as intended: linking a narrative (online article) with data in repositories with dedicated functionality (NCBI, image repos, PDB, etc.) such that the format limitations/archiving requirements of the former don’t constrain outputs of the latter 2/n
Huge spectrum of views on this. At one end, visions of a living 'article of the future' with embedded data in wondrous new formats. At the other, "just a PDF".
What is most interesting to me is that someone's position on that spectrum does not correlate with how tech savvy they are. 1/n
IMO we can have our cake and eat it by using the Web as intended: using links to connect a narrative (online article) with data in repositories with dedicated functionality (PDB, code hubs, NCBI, etc.). The format limitations/archiving requirements of the former then don't constrain the latter. 2/3
