Thanks for sharing! If you haven't checked it out yet, the people at q.e.d. Science are trying a different approach, using AI assistance on the writer's side before submission. I think it's very promising. q.e.d Science share.google/pD2QbJt1a2vS...

Don't do it silently!

Will it supplant reviewer #3 😁??

One of my main concerns is the consequences of the mutual feedback spiral retraining of thinking.... how much will humans and AI "accommodate" their logic and thinking in pursuit of efficiency? I think we all should be aware of this, and actively guide the process.

A very interesting thread! Thanks for sharing. In a way, will it imply that experts doing the final (human) review will have to be "better experts" and/or more trained to use their skills in complement with what the AI side does?

Congrats! The abstract sounds amazing. I wonder how much the remodeling at the near-skin level also impacts not just the interaction niche but also cell-cell interaction times. Will dig into it more when I find some time!

That's because she remembered all the shadows and the doubts.

Beautiful!!! I think this is a big contender for pic of the year in some imaging contests 😉

This is wrong at too many levels to condense it in one post.....

I'd say paper rejections, because you (and your whole team) have already invested a lot (resources AND emotions), and grants largely depend ultimately on them too. But it becomes a bit of a chicken-egg conundrum.

Very interesting. That's a big statement, though. Has this study been published already? I'll definitely follow up.

Jeff Buckley's "Grace" or Pink Floyd's "Dark side of the moon".