Overly.Honest.Editor
@editoratlarge.bsky.social
#Openscience ❤️&👻; incrementalist; Cptn Grumblepants; thought follower; unbelievable little shit; self-serving internet bawbag; occasional Jorts; Grumpytits McGee. I will not just & I can't even. Skeets CC By.
Reposted by Overly.Honest.Editor
195: Living meta-analysis everythinghertz.com/195
We discuss how living meta‑analyses can cut research waste and keep evidence current. We also chat about how using synthetic research participants is a terrible idea and what researchers *really* mean when they call a study "recent".
We discuss how living meta‑analyses can cut research waste and keep evidence current. We also chat about how using synthetic research participants is a terrible idea and what researchers *really* mean when they call a study "recent".
January 14, 2026 at 1:27 PM
195: Living meta-analysis everythinghertz.com/195
We discuss how living meta‑analyses can cut research waste and keep evidence current. We also chat about how using synthetic research participants is a terrible idea and what researchers *really* mean when they call a study "recent".
We discuss how living meta‑analyses can cut research waste and keep evidence current. We also chat about how using synthetic research participants is a terrible idea and what researchers *really* mean when they call a study "recent".
How is the headline not: AI reduces scientific engagement and increases redundant work (apparently also findings here...) #OverlyCynicalEditor
I wonder how many could have predicted this finding - AI tools boost individual scientists but could limit research topics
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
🧪
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
🧪
January 15, 2026 at 12:28 AM
How is the headline not: AI reduces scientific engagement and increases redundant work (apparently also findings here...) #OverlyCynicalEditor
In the draft "publishing" was autocorrected to "punishing", and I think there is a lesson in this for all of us.
Very good outlook at the future of science, and publishing, from an outgoing editor @seva.bsky.social : hegemon.substack.com/p/the-age-of...
I just want to cynically note that many papers were sound, narrowly useful, and wildly uninteresting already before LLMs #OverlyHonestEditor
I just want to cynically note that many papers were sound, narrowly useful, and wildly uninteresting already before LLMs #OverlyHonestEditor
January 14, 2026 at 7:16 PM
In the draft "publishing" was autocorrected to "punishing", and I think there is a lesson in this for all of us.
Very good outlook at the future of science, and publishing, from an outgoing editor @seva.bsky.social : hegemon.substack.com/p/the-age-of...
I just want to cynically note that many papers were sound, narrowly useful, and wildly uninteresting already before LLMs #OverlyHonestEditor
I just want to cynically note that many papers were sound, narrowly useful, and wildly uninteresting already before LLMs #OverlyHonestEditor
January 14, 2026 at 7:14 PM
Very good outlook at the future of science, and publishing, from an outgoing editor @seva.bsky.social : hegemon.substack.com/p/the-age-of...
I just want to cynically note that many papers were sound, narrowly useful, and wildly uninteresting already before LLMs #OverlyHonestEditor
I just want to cynically note that many papers were sound, narrowly useful, and wildly uninteresting already before LLMs #OverlyHonestEditor
Ever since the rise of the machines, so many people suddenly "completely understand the many demands on my time" #OverlyHonestEditor #AcademicSky In true academic fashion, this is usually followed by asking to hurry tf up.
January 13, 2026 at 11:32 AM
Ever since the rise of the machines, so many people suddenly "completely understand the many demands on my time" #OverlyHonestEditor #AcademicSky In true academic fashion, this is usually followed by asking to hurry tf up.
Reposted by Overly.Honest.Editor
People constantly list things that are currently wrong with academic publishing, but usually fail to note that many of these problems are rooted in the same thing: evaluating people by *how much* they publish.
A problem that comes from within.
A problem that comes from within.
January 12, 2026 at 2:04 PM
People constantly list things that are currently wrong with academic publishing, but usually fail to note that many of these problems are rooted in the same thing: evaluating people by *how much* they publish.
A problem that comes from within.
A problem that comes from within.
Not a question I thought I'd be pondering this year, but after a chat with a distressed colleague the other day (a EU national with US green card), I do wonder how will academia or publishing work if US invades Greenland? 😵💫 #OverlyPoliticallyIneptEditor #AcademicSky
January 13, 2026 at 7:49 AM
Not a question I thought I'd be pondering this year, but after a chat with a distressed colleague the other day (a EU national with US green card), I do wonder how will academia or publishing work if US invades Greenland? 😵💫 #OverlyPoliticallyIneptEditor #AcademicSky
Reposted by Overly.Honest.Editor
Wow 😱 @ChatGPTapp from @OpenAI just repeatedly denied that Maria Machado, the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner -- also Venezuelan opposition leader -- actually won the Nobel Peace Prize, despite multiple corrections, with sources, from me (screenshots below) 1/
January 6, 2026 at 8:50 AM
Wow 😱 @ChatGPTapp from @OpenAI just repeatedly denied that Maria Machado, the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner -- also Venezuelan opposition leader -- actually won the Nobel Peace Prize, despite multiple corrections, with sources, from me (screenshots below) 1/
Every time someone complains about the decision claiming AI generated review reports, because they look too nice #OverlyAIAverseEditor
ChatGPTzero says my abstract (written preLLMs) has a "high" probability of being written by AI: "consistently formal tone, smooth logical progression...lack of idiosyncratic stylistic variation...coherent and well-structured"
IOW written by an editor...
journals.plos.org/plosbiology/...
IOW written by an editor...
journals.plos.org/plosbiology/...
Biomedical publishing: Past historic, present continuous, future conditional
Academic journals have been publishing the results of biomedical research for more than 350 years. Reviewing their history reveals that the ways in which journals vet submissions have changed over tim...
journals.plos.org
December 22, 2025 at 3:38 PM
Every time someone complains about the decision claiming AI generated review reports, because they look too nice #OverlyAIAverseEditor
Reposted by Overly.Honest.Editor
My science is more sciencey than your science!
"Boundary work is more contentious, however, when it desciences research on ideological grounds."
New work by Robbie Sutton and @stefanleach.bsky.social on science rejection.
Open Access: doi.org/10.1016/j.co...
"Boundary work is more contentious, however, when it desciences research on ideological grounds."
New work by Robbie Sutton and @stefanleach.bsky.social on science rejection.
Open Access: doi.org/10.1016/j.co...
December 18, 2025 at 1:25 PM
My science is more sciencey than your science!
"Boundary work is more contentious, however, when it desciences research on ideological grounds."
New work by Robbie Sutton and @stefanleach.bsky.social on science rejection.
Open Access: doi.org/10.1016/j.co...
"Boundary work is more contentious, however, when it desciences research on ideological grounds."
New work by Robbie Sutton and @stefanleach.bsky.social on science rejection.
Open Access: doi.org/10.1016/j.co...
Welcome to the future, enshittification getting shittier by a minute #OverlyDepressedEditor
November 27, 2025 at 5:48 PM
Welcome to the future, enshittification getting shittier by a minute #OverlyDepressedEditor
What. A. Headline.
OpenAI needs to raise at least $207bn by 2030 so it can continue to lose money, HSBC estimates on.ft.com/4ij0yh8
OpenAI needs to raise at least $207bn by 2030 so it can continue to lose money, HSBC estimates
A burning platform
on.ft.com
November 26, 2025 at 9:48 PM
What. A. Headline.
Ok, if you thought gold standard of science EO was bad, wait until you read this one #OverlyHonestEditor Is almost like an AI wrote it. Is so bad is hard to know where to start to pin down why it's bad... 1/
www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...
www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...
Launching the Genesis Mission
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose.
www.whitehouse.gov
November 25, 2025 at 7:31 AM
Ok, if you thought gold standard of science EO was bad, wait until you read this one #OverlyHonestEditor Is almost like an AI wrote it. Is so bad is hard to know where to start to pin down why it's bad... 1/
www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...
www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...
From @aip-publishing.bsky.social: cost of a peer reviewed article is $2700 (*before* you start giving back to the community). Would like to see a more detailed split, but it does align with estimates from eLife and EMBO #ScientificPublishing
www.stm-publishing.com/cost-transpa...
www.stm-publishing.com/cost-transpa...
Cost Transparency at AIP Publishing: Why We’re Sharing Our True Costs
AIP Publishing is committed to building a more inclusive and vibrant future for the physical sciences. Open science can accelerate global progress by breaking barriers to open and fair research commun...
www.stm-publishing.com
November 23, 2025 at 12:46 PM
From @aip-publishing.bsky.social: cost of a peer reviewed article is $2700 (*before* you start giving back to the community). Would like to see a more detailed split, but it does align with estimates from eLife and EMBO #ScientificPublishing
www.stm-publishing.com/cost-transpa...
www.stm-publishing.com/cost-transpa...
I tried an even harder example on Gemini Pro image generation and this is quite scary/amazing. I asked for a microscopy image of around 20 HeLa cells, GFP tagged 20% nuclear, 10% membrane, +1 nuclear staining, + overlap. Image below and prompt in the following post.
November 23, 2025 at 7:44 AM
Reposted by Overly.Honest.Editor
About that exclusive, "closed-to-press" MAHA summit last week with RFK and JD Vance: I got in.
Here's what I saw. 🧵 🧪
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Here's what I saw. 🧵 🧪
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
November 21, 2025 at 5:01 PM
About that exclusive, "closed-to-press" MAHA summit last week with RFK and JD Vance: I got in.
Here's what I saw. 🧵 🧪
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Here's what I saw. 🧵 🧪
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Or, you know, they use em dash a lot because we already do, too.
Every time you say "this review/paper/comment was generated with LLM BECAUSE EM DASH YOU FOOL!" a little editor-fairy dies #OverlyHonestEditor
Every time you say "this review/paper/comment was generated with LLM BECAUSE EM DASH YOU FOOL!" a little editor-fairy dies #OverlyHonestEditor
the internet has decided that em-dashes are a hallmark of llm writing, which is *extremely* annoying to me, as someone who uses em-dashes all the time.
dear internet please consider the possibility that LLMs use em-dashes a lot because they're, like, good
dear internet please consider the possibility that LLMs use em-dashes a lot because they're, like, good
November 16, 2025 at 4:15 AM
Or, you know, they use em dash a lot because we already do, too.
Every time you say "this review/paper/comment was generated with LLM BECAUSE EM DASH YOU FOOL!" a little editor-fairy dies #OverlyHonestEditor
Every time you say "this review/paper/comment was generated with LLM BECAUSE EM DASH YOU FOOL!" a little editor-fairy dies #OverlyHonestEditor
I'm still waiting for someone to finally comment on the fact that if your profits are $15B, or 35% (ish), it still means that publishing costs at least $30B pa. All publishers could disappear overnight and the problem would still be at billion dollars scale. #ScientificPublishing
EXCELLENT graphic on the drain of scientific publishing! zenodo.org/records/1759...
November 15, 2025 at 8:31 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to finally comment on the fact that if your profits are $15B, or 35% (ish), it still means that publishing costs at least $30B pa. All publishers could disappear overnight and the problem would still be at billion dollars scale. #ScientificPublishing
This. Also, an extremely unpopular opinion: it is ok to retract papers for that #OverlyHonestEditor Saying "our claim is wrong, but it's okay because we warned you it's wrong" is not a cheatcode. (What it is, is the evidence of the lack of a spine.) #ScientificPublishing #ResearchIntegrity
"Schrödinger's causal inference" (n):
The practice of making causal claims or interpretations within a scientific article - typically in the title, abstract, implications, or conclusion - while simultaneously warning that the study design is unsuitable for causal inference.
The practice of making causal claims or interpretations within a scientific article - typically in the title, abstract, implications, or conclusion - while simultaneously warning that the study design is unsuitable for causal inference.
November 15, 2025 at 8:23 AM
This. Also, an extremely unpopular opinion: it is ok to retract papers for that #OverlyHonestEditor Saying "our claim is wrong, but it's okay because we warned you it's wrong" is not a cheatcode. (What it is, is the evidence of the lack of a spine.) #ScientificPublishing #ResearchIntegrity
Reposted by Overly.Honest.Editor
194: Author verification everythinghertz.com/194
We discuss whether preprint servers and journals should introduce author identity verification for submitting manuscripts. This would probably speed up the submission process, is this worth the potential downsides?
We discuss whether preprint servers and journals should introduce author identity verification for submitting manuscripts. This would probably speed up the submission process, is this worth the potential downsides?
November 10, 2025 at 2:03 PM
194: Author verification everythinghertz.com/194
We discuss whether preprint servers and journals should introduce author identity verification for submitting manuscripts. This would probably speed up the submission process, is this worth the potential downsides?
We discuss whether preprint servers and journals should introduce author identity verification for submitting manuscripts. This would probably speed up the submission process, is this worth the potential downsides?
Editor Cat-zhang on hols, listening to the backlog of @nulliusinverba.bsky.social. Just past episodes on fraud and conspiracy stories. Doesn't feel like they aged well.
(Also, so many comments on the fraud instalments, but I bet it's been all said by now.)
(Also, so many comments on the fraud instalments, but I bet it's been all said by now.)
November 10, 2025 at 9:46 AM
Editor Cat-zhang on hols, listening to the backlog of @nulliusinverba.bsky.social. Just past episodes on fraud and conspiracy stories. Doesn't feel like they aged well.
(Also, so many comments on the fraud instalments, but I bet it's been all said by now.)
(Also, so many comments on the fraud instalments, but I bet it's been all said by now.)
Ok, if citation impact is meant to be just citations, I vote for Vickers 2017 for huge citation/minimal actual impact #ScientificPublishing #ResearchIntegrity I'm sure it's a nice paper, but cure cancer it will not.
Youyou Tu's work on anti-malarial compounds that saved millions of lives (w/Nobel+Lasker recognition) wins the low citation/huge impact cell. The original paper has 87 citations as of today: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11721477/ Hopefully she can get to 100.
What for huge citations and moderate impact?
What for huge citations and moderate impact?
November 8, 2025 at 2:21 PM
Ok, if citation impact is meant to be just citations, I vote for Vickers 2017 for huge citation/minimal actual impact #ScientificPublishing #ResearchIntegrity I'm sure it's a nice paper, but cure cancer it will not.
Reposted by Overly.Honest.Editor
Academics set their metrics and incentives. And that defines everything. Including the future of scientific publishing.
And if at any point, one feels that incentives are being defined from outside, that's what needs to be fought against.
But the power of change lies within.
And if at any point, one feels that incentives are being defined from outside, that's what needs to be fought against.
But the power of change lies within.
November 6, 2025 at 12:42 PM
Academics set their metrics and incentives. And that defines everything. Including the future of scientific publishing.
And if at any point, one feels that incentives are being defined from outside, that's what needs to be fought against.
But the power of change lies within.
And if at any point, one feels that incentives are being defined from outside, that's what needs to be fought against.
But the power of change lies within.
Started listening to the latest bonus episode of @everythinghertz.com and can't decide if you guys completely lost it, or am I missing something because of the accent 🧸
November 3, 2025 at 2:53 PM
Started listening to the latest bonus episode of @everythinghertz.com and can't decide if you guys completely lost it, or am I missing something because of the accent 🧸
Reposted by Overly.Honest.Editor
In praise of fundamental research
Our editorial this week argues that I n these financially straitened times, funders must recognize that great discoveries often arise from work that was looking for something completely different
🧪
@nature.com
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Our editorial this week argues that I n these financially straitened times, funders must recognize that great discoveries often arise from work that was looking for something completely different
🧪
@nature.com
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
From MRI to Ozempic: breakthroughs that show why fundamental research must be protected
In these financially straitened times, funders must recognize that great discoveries often arise from work that was looking for something completely different.
www.nature.com
October 30, 2025 at 1:53 PM
In praise of fundamental research
Our editorial this week argues that I n these financially straitened times, funders must recognize that great discoveries often arise from work that was looking for something completely different
🧪
@nature.com
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Our editorial this week argues that I n these financially straitened times, funders must recognize that great discoveries often arise from work that was looking for something completely different
🧪
@nature.com
www.nature.com/articles/d41...