Metabo_Dave
@metabodave.bsky.social
Mourning the days when all we talked about was font choice, reference styles and glam humping.
Reposted by Metabo_Dave
Every Democratic senator who votes for this should be primaried.
Deal has been reached, I’m told by multiple sources, and Kaine has announced his support
November 10, 2025 at 12:16 AM
Every Democratic senator who votes for this should be primaried.
A CR until January 30th at FY24 levels will mean continued ultra conservative funding policies at the NIH. Expect the MYF "policy" to continue too. Not a great scenario considering the appropriations bills on the table look promising.
November 10, 2025 at 1:06 AM
A CR until January 30th at FY24 levels will mean continued ultra conservative funding policies at the NIH. Expect the MYF "policy" to continue too. Not a great scenario considering the appropriations bills on the table look promising.
Democrats man. What a bunch of twats.
November 10, 2025 at 12:53 AM
Democrats man. What a bunch of twats.
Reposted by Metabo_Dave
RFK Jr's response to someone collapsing nearby him was to haul ass out of the room as quickly as possible
November 6, 2025 at 5:45 PM
RFK Jr's response to someone collapsing nearby him was to haul ass out of the room as quickly as possible
Reposted by Metabo_Dave
I saw it in the Principled Investigator Substack, and they reference a Science article that notes an NIH presentation. open.substack.com/pub/theprinc...
The Principled Investigator - October 31, 2025
Weekly digest
open.substack.com
November 6, 2025 at 2:10 AM
I saw it in the Principled Investigator Substack, and they reference a Science article that notes an NIH presentation. open.substack.com/pub/theprinc...
Reposted by Metabo_Dave
and there it is. the absolutely massive change in R01s funded multi-year. our perceptions that the new mandate, sorry strong suggestion, has had a dramatic effect on forward funding and therefore success rates is validated.
2025
Here the largest fraction is for R01 awards, followed by RF1s, and R21s.
In most cases, these were R01s that had not particularly reason to be forward funded except that NIH had put itself in a situation when large amounts of funding needed to be committed by the end of the fiscal year
21/25
Here the largest fraction is for R01 awards, followed by RF1s, and R21s.
In most cases, these were R01s that had not particularly reason to be forward funded except that NIH had put itself in a situation when large amounts of funding needed to be committed by the end of the fiscal year
21/25
November 5, 2025 at 4:45 PM
and there it is. the absolutely massive change in R01s funded multi-year. our perceptions that the new mandate, sorry strong suggestion, has had a dramatic effect on forward funding and therefore success rates is validated.
Reposted by Metabo_Dave
This rough estimate says FY2025 new R01s should be down by about 26%. If we look at the number actually funded in FY2025, it is down 25% from FY2024, 32% from FY2023 and 34% down from FY2022.
reporter.nih.gov/search/OrznV...
reporter.nih.gov/search/OrznV...
RePORT ⟩ RePORTER
reporter.nih.gov
November 5, 2025 at 5:39 PM
This rough estimate says FY2025 new R01s should be down by about 26%. If we look at the number actually funded in FY2025, it is down 25% from FY2024, 32% from FY2023 and 34% down from FY2022.
reporter.nih.gov/search/OrznV...
reporter.nih.gov/search/OrznV...
A government shutdown with specific carve outs is the most pathetic thing I've heard from Congress. The media is desperately trying to push the narrative that Democrats are under intense pressure, but I don't see that at all. The message is simple: the Rs have complete control.
October 29, 2025 at 3:09 PM
A government shutdown with specific carve outs is the most pathetic thing I've heard from Congress. The media is desperately trying to push the narrative that Democrats are under intense pressure, but I don't see that at all. The message is simple: the Rs have complete control.
Reposted by Metabo_Dave
Nature Comms was cleverly positioned as a trickle down for subfields without their own Nature sibling but in practice took papers from high-impact fields that did. 2/2
October 29, 2025 at 2:05 AM
Nature Comms was cleverly positioned as a trickle down for subfields without their own Nature sibling but in practice took papers from high-impact fields that did. 2/2
If a journal that used to occupy that space has a much lower IF and **perceived** prestige, but requires similar data and "conceptual advance" (ugh), then it's a no brainer.
IMO these journals have generally failed to adapt to the new Nat Comms et al driven landscape.
IMO these journals have generally failed to adapt to the new Nat Comms et al driven landscape.
Nature Communications will publish ~10K papers in 2025 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov?term=%22Natu...
That's ~$70M in revenue, while many of the non-profit journals that used to occupy that slot in the journal hierarchy have seen a precipitous decline in submissions in the 15 years it's existed.
That's ~$70M in revenue, while many of the non-profit journals that used to occupy that slot in the journal hierarchy have seen a precipitous decline in submissions in the 15 years it's existed.
October 28, 2025 at 6:37 PM
If a journal that used to occupy that space has a much lower IF and **perceived** prestige, but requires similar data and "conceptual advance" (ugh), then it's a no brainer.
IMO these journals have generally failed to adapt to the new Nat Comms et al driven landscape.
IMO these journals have generally failed to adapt to the new Nat Comms et al driven landscape.
Reposted by Metabo_Dave
While there may be "pay to publish" and "predatory" journals, the fact that an editor does not agree with the position of any given peer reviewer is not evidence of this. Peer review is merely advisory, it is not decision making. Confusion over this leads to some very bad reviewer practices.
As far as I see it, it is pay to publish. They have ignored my review comments before just went forward publishing a paper that was simply trash quality. The quality of some of the papers are very bad, which makes me question the editorial and review process. There are of course many good papers.
October 27, 2025 at 4:32 PM
While there may be "pay to publish" and "predatory" journals, the fact that an editor does not agree with the position of any given peer reviewer is not evidence of this. Peer review is merely advisory, it is not decision making. Confusion over this leads to some very bad reviewer practices.
The last sentence is critical here, and I would have assumed this anyway.
These are simply CNS papers in waiting.
These are simply CNS papers in waiting.
I have seen several offers (ours and others) to candidates at the Assistant level whose primary postdoc work was in preprint stage. These papers took ~2 years in review process. However, these were all trainees of _very_ well-known scientists.
Preprints don't get you jobs, grants or promotion. Sadly, that's just the reality.
October 27, 2025 at 3:34 PM
The last sentence is critical here, and I would have assumed this anyway.
These are simply CNS papers in waiting.
These are simply CNS papers in waiting.
The truth is that journals like Nature Communications and Science Advances have disrupted the publication industry more than we care to admit, and not in a "good" way. They are wildly successful journals.
I'm not sure we've adjusted to this.
I'm not sure we've adjusted to this.
And of course as a publisher seeks to route submissions to trickle-down journals, the bar to desk rejection will inevitably be lowered.
October 26, 2025 at 7:11 PM
The truth is that journals like Nature Communications and Science Advances have disrupted the publication industry more than we care to admit, and not in a "good" way. They are wildly successful journals.
I'm not sure we've adjusted to this.
I'm not sure we've adjusted to this.
Reposted by Metabo_Dave
The media’s apparent normalization of 3% annual inflation is wild. The framing is problematic considering the average household will spend almost $2500 more a year for the same goods and services at this rate of inflation. How can this being sold as normal? www.cnn.com/2025/10/24/e...
America’s inflation is back at 3%. That’s higher than normal but not out of control | CNN Business
The cost of living got even more expensive for Americans last month, with prices rising at the fastest pace since the start of the year.
www.cnn.com
October 24, 2025 at 1:40 PM
The media’s apparent normalization of 3% annual inflation is wild. The framing is problematic considering the average household will spend almost $2500 more a year for the same goods and services at this rate of inflation. How can this being sold as normal? www.cnn.com/2025/10/24/e...
Reposted by Metabo_Dave
New: The Pentagon confirms to CNN it will funnel $130M from an anonymous Trump “friend” toward military pay.
Asked about the donor’s identity and any foreign or domestic entanglements, the WH referred questions to DoD. DoD then referred questions back to the WH
www.cnn.com/2025/10/24/p...
Asked about the donor’s identity and any foreign or domestic entanglements, the WH referred questions to DoD. DoD then referred questions back to the WH
www.cnn.com/2025/10/24/p...
Pentagon to use $130 million donation from anonymous Trump ‘friend’ to pay military members | CNN Politics
The Trump administration plans to funnel a $130 million donation from an anonymous ally of President Donald Trump toward paying military service members during the government shutdown, the Defense Dep...
www.cnn.com
October 24, 2025 at 6:11 PM
New: The Pentagon confirms to CNN it will funnel $130M from an anonymous Trump “friend” toward military pay.
Asked about the donor’s identity and any foreign or domestic entanglements, the WH referred questions to DoD. DoD then referred questions back to the WH
www.cnn.com/2025/10/24/p...
Asked about the donor’s identity and any foreign or domestic entanglements, the WH referred questions to DoD. DoD then referred questions back to the WH
www.cnn.com/2025/10/24/p...
Reposted by Metabo_Dave
From the Archive: Placing credit where it is due drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/p...
Placing credit where it is due
I’ve had a few interactions lately that have led to some pondering on the attribution of academic credit for papers. It all starts with the hilarious gyrations that promotions and tenure comm…
drugmonkey.wordpress.com
October 24, 2025 at 6:26 PM
From the Archive: Placing credit where it is due drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/p...
Strong academic Twitter vibes on here today. Great to see.
October 24, 2025 at 6:36 PM
Strong academic Twitter vibes on here today. Great to see.
Reposted by Metabo_Dave
"I couldn’t beat em. So I joined em. And I tell more junior folks to do the same. Cite your funding generously."
totally agree but would like to point out ways that other NIH policies are pushing people to consider whether they should cite their funding, pushing work back into the shadows
totally agree but would like to point out ways that other NIH policies are pushing people to consider whether they should cite their funding, pushing work back into the shadows
Thinking about this one for..reasons.
From the Archive: The NIH is concerned about overcitation of grant awards, decades too late to have effect drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2023/10/20/t...
From the Archive: The NIH is concerned about overcitation of grant awards, decades too late to have effect drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2023/10/20/t...
The NIH is concerned about overcitation of grant awards, decades too late to have effect
In a recent blog post, Mike Lauer (the head of the NIH Office of Extramural Research) implores extramurally funded investigators not to “overcite” grant awards on their papers. “O…
drugmonkey.wordpress.com
October 24, 2025 at 6:23 PM
"I couldn’t beat em. So I joined em. And I tell more junior folks to do the same. Cite your funding generously."
totally agree but would like to point out ways that other NIH policies are pushing people to consider whether they should cite their funding, pushing work back into the shadows
totally agree but would like to point out ways that other NIH policies are pushing people to consider whether they should cite their funding, pushing work back into the shadows
Pro tip: if the funding supports your lab, it gets linked to the paper. End of.
Great point. It it possible to attribute grants in myncbi if your co-author “forgot”, or you were young and foolish and didn’t realize it matters.
Btw I think you can link papers with funding through eRA commons and myNCBI if not done directly in the paper.
October 24, 2025 at 6:28 PM
Pro tip: if the funding supports your lab, it gets linked to the paper. End of.
Pro tip: make sure your myNCBI profile is linked to your eRA account and that you link awards to papers directly in there.
October 24, 2025 at 6:15 PM
Pro tip: make sure your myNCBI profile is linked to your eRA account and that you link awards to papers directly in there.
Reposted by Metabo_Dave
While more is usually better it cannot be emphasized enough that the difference between zero and one is immense. One huge / glam paper? An advocate can work with that. Zero? That’s some really tough going.
There are too many folks who come to me at the tail end of their first big award and have 1 or 0 papers citing that grant.
Productivity from that first award will color every single grant submission afterwards, even if the application has nothing to do with that topic.
Productivity from that first award will color every single grant submission afterwards, even if the application has nothing to do with that topic.
October 24, 2025 at 3:46 PM
While more is usually better it cannot be emphasized enough that the difference between zero and one is immense. One huge / glam paper? An advocate can work with that. Zero? That’s some really tough going.
Reposted by Metabo_Dave
Yesterday in a meeting I told an administrator that somewhere along the way they have gotten confused, thinking of themselves as the managers and faculty as their employees. I informed him that that is not the case.
October 23, 2025 at 3:15 PM
Yesterday in a meeting I told an administrator that somewhere along the way they have gotten confused, thinking of themselves as the managers and faculty as their employees. I informed him that that is not the case.
Reposted by Metabo_Dave
If the NIH is working up to mandating open access publishing, we should just be able to supply the grant number and let the publisher bill the NIH directly. right?
October 23, 2025 at 9:11 PM
If the NIH is working up to mandating open access publishing, we should just be able to supply the grant number and let the publisher bill the NIH directly. right?
Reposted by Metabo_Dave
BREAKING: New suit seeks TRO blocking Trump's White House ballroom project and further destruction of East Wing. Doc: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com
October 23, 2025 at 7:43 PM
BREAKING: New suit seeks TRO blocking Trump's White House ballroom project and further destruction of East Wing. Doc: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Reposted by Metabo_Dave
🧪
@joann-trejo.bsky.social, @marymunson4.bsky.social and I have a commentary in @natcellbio.nature.com on recent attacks on DEI in biomedical research: "If scientific research, especially biomedical research, is meant to serve everyone, then it requires that everyone has an opportunity to participate"
Scaling back DEI programmes and the loss of scientific talent
Nature Cell Biology - Programmes that support diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in science are under attack in the USA. Data indicate that diversity in the scientific workforce increases...
www.nature.com
October 23, 2025 at 4:36 PM
🧪