Expertise is having fucked up in enough different ways that you become able to anticipate it.

We need to think more about communication in this context, that is for sure. Clinical staff should not say "your risk is 21%". Just giving an 95% CI in layman terms does not do the job. The uncertainty complicates things quite a lot imo, not sure how to best tackle that to be honest.

We recently had 5 review reports for a submission. While the comments were reasonable, the 5 reports were all very similar in the issues they raised. Suspicious.

You could park many of them in the Journal of Unplanned Interim Analyses.

Graeme is clearly on to something here!

Yes! Some years ago, The Group of Biomedical Sciences at mu uni said in front of an auditorium with many young and local researchers that they wanted to invest more in superstar transfers and compared it with football transfers.

Yes.... somehow they always get it wrong. You cannot get to those levels in science and politics and get it right.

yes, subscription model. Fee calculated based on character count of the main paper, including refs, tables, figs. Sounds a bit odd in this digital age.

Great question! It seems that universities would (secretly?) say yes.

Academia says 'no novelty no glory no funding'

Following the footsteps of Bink Marino!