Paul Whaley
@dangerwhale.bsky.social
Research methods in environmental health. Can't write. Works with words anyway. Editor-in-Chief, Evidence-Based Toxicology. Other stuff too. https://linktr.ee/paulwhaley
I KNEW THIS BEFORE THE STORY EVEN BROKE. JFC Guardian.
November 10, 2025 at 7:56 PM
I KNEW THIS BEFORE THE STORY EVEN BROKE. JFC Guardian.
Don't know if this is your bag, but if it is - register, and listen to two people try to have a sensible discussion about the role of LLMs in research (specifically, systematic review). Lena Schmidt knows her stuff, it should be good! events.teams.microsoft.com/event/e4e8f0...
October 14, 2025 at 10:22 AM
Don't know if this is your bag, but if it is - register, and listen to two people try to have a sensible discussion about the role of LLMs in research (specifically, systematic review). Lena Schmidt knows her stuff, it should be good! events.teams.microsoft.com/event/e4e8f0...
I did not realise the reviewer comments are available for the tylenol / autism SR. They are a fantastic case study in how editors can screw up, allowing authors to fake out a revision process because they are not sufficiently experienced to see what is going on and/or empowered to call it out.
September 26, 2025 at 11:09 AM
I did not realise the reviewer comments are available for the tylenol / autism SR. They are a fantastic case study in how editors can screw up, allowing authors to fake out a revision process because they are not sufficiently experienced to see what is going on and/or empowered to call it out.
Just wanted to share a really nice poster by @carrieprice.bsky.social and colleagues. As someone who deliberately invited librarians a lot when I was editing systematic reviews, I can vouch for what they add. Specific info about attitudes and priorities is really interesting. osf.io/8khyp
September 25, 2025 at 9:35 AM
Just wanted to share a really nice poster by @carrieprice.bsky.social and colleagues. As someone who deliberately invited librarians a lot when I was editing systematic reviews, I can vouch for what they add. Specific info about attitudes and priorities is really interesting. osf.io/8khyp
A notice to all predatory publishers: this is how to spam your prospective authors.
September 3, 2025 at 3:39 PM
A notice to all predatory publishers: this is how to spam your prospective authors.
An example of a useful LLM prompt and response. As an editor, I have a hard time trying to locate reusable recommendations for submitting authors. Software citations is a very common one. Rather than trawl manually through reviewer reports, the LLM does it for me. Boring task. Problem solved.
August 7, 2025 at 10:59 AM
An example of a useful LLM prompt and response. As an editor, I have a hard time trying to locate reusable recommendations for submitting authors. Software citations is a very common one. Rather than trawl manually through reviewer reports, the LLM does it for me. Boring task. Problem solved.
Huh look at that, always had me down as a nerd and jokingly as a goth. www.idrlabs.com/jock-nerd-pr...
July 8, 2025 at 12:03 PM
Huh look at that, always had me down as a nerd and jokingly as a goth. www.idrlabs.com/jock-nerd-pr...
Probably going to annoy people by posting about LLMs again but... here is the difference between trying to get something useful out of Google in relation to a half-remembered conversation about domain translation (as it turns out it is called) and using Copilot instead. You tell me which is better.
June 20, 2025 at 3:35 PM
Probably going to annoy people by posting about LLMs again but... here is the difference between trying to get something useful out of Google in relation to a half-remembered conversation about domain translation (as it turns out it is called) and using Copilot instead. You tell me which is better.
Final point, but you are being quite selective in your screen-grab. The salient point is immediately above the paragraphs you quoted. (And the moral and practical argument is made above that.)
June 5, 2025 at 5:40 PM
Final point, but you are being quite selective in your screen-grab. The salient point is immediately above the paragraphs you quoted. (And the moral and practical argument is made above that.)
I'm not saying that LLMs are fabulous. However, anyone who has read an abstract that I have written by myself must surely appreciate how much better this machine-assisted effort is. (Preprint here by the way papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....)
June 3, 2025 at 3:09 PM
I'm not saying that LLMs are fabulous. However, anyone who has read an abstract that I have written by myself must surely appreciate how much better this machine-assisted effort is. (Preprint here by the way papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....)
I did not remember.
May 25, 2025 at 5:17 PM
I did not remember.
The network evolves. We now have a rough draft of our first question set (design issues relation to the exposure regimen applied in a study) for our tool for assessing the internal validity of in vitro studies. Note, this is very rough! A Delphi will be done.
May 20, 2025 at 8:26 AM
The network evolves. We now have a rough draft of our first question set (design issues relation to the exposure regimen applied in a study) for our tool for assessing the internal validity of in vitro studies. Note, this is very rough! A Delphi will be done.
Christ on a bike. This was just a couple of tweets down from this, and I don't know which is the worst thing I've seen today.
May 18, 2025 at 6:25 PM
Christ on a bike. This was just a couple of tweets down from this, and I don't know which is the worst thing I've seen today.
Scientific workshops are generally, how do I put this, painful - right? (Or maybe it's just me who lacks stamina for 15 back-to-back PowerPoint presentations in airless windowless rooms?) There is a better way. We wrote about it. Read it. End the suffering. link.springer.com/article/10.1...
May 10, 2025 at 11:41 AM
Scientific workshops are generally, how do I put this, painful - right? (Or maybe it's just me who lacks stamina for 15 back-to-back PowerPoint presentations in airless windowless rooms?) There is a better way. We wrote about it. Read it. End the suffering. link.springer.com/article/10.1...
huh what's that oh nothing just a concept network relating 375 bias concepts for in vitro research abstracted from the literature and focus group discussions that took 9 months and about 250 person-hours to build
May 9, 2025 at 3:15 PM
huh what's that oh nothing just a concept network relating 375 bias concepts for in vitro research abstracted from the literature and focus group discussions that took 9 months and about 250 person-hours to build
Copilot is not changing. 🥰
May 6, 2025 at 10:15 AM
Copilot is not changing. 🥰
Never change, Copilot. :D
May 6, 2025 at 10:14 AM
Never change, Copilot. :D
Uh oh. I don't even have this many followers?
May 3, 2025 at 3:12 PM
Uh oh. I don't even have this many followers?
OK Bluesky, settle an argument for me. External validity consists of two concepts: generalisability (inference from the sample to population from which the sample is drawn) and applicability (inference from either the sample or the sampled population to the population of interest). Is it ONE or TWO?
April 4, 2025 at 5:54 PM
OK Bluesky, settle an argument for me. External validity consists of two concepts: generalisability (inference from the sample to population from which the sample is drawn) and applicability (inference from either the sample or the sampled population to the population of interest). Is it ONE or TWO?
WRONG. It's Michigan State University that has the transformative agreement. Nice try though!
April 1, 2025 at 5:50 PM
WRONG. It's Michigan State University that has the transformative agreement. Nice try though!
Copilot going a little harder than expected.
March 11, 2025 at 1:30 PM
Copilot going a little harder than expected.