@kawillis.bsky.social
Reposted
This smells distinctly like collider bias and/or selection bias and/or regression to the mean... You simply can't select teen prodigies, and world class athletes rom databases, and go run regressions without serious consideration of the selection process!
"Most top achievers (Nobel laureates and world-class musicians, athletes, chess players) demonstrated lower performance than many peers during their early years. Across the highest adult performance, peak performance is negatively correlated with early performance" www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
Recent discoveries on the acquisition of the highest levels of human performance
Scientists have long debated the origins of exceptional human achievements. This literature review summarizes recent evidence from multiple domains on the acquisition of world-class performance. We re...
www.science.org
December 20, 2025 at 3:48 PM
This smells distinctly like collider bias and/or selection bias and/or regression to the mean... You simply can't select teen prodigies, and world class athletes rom databases, and go run regressions without serious consideration of the selection process!
Reposted
From @science.org Breakthrough of the Year: Solar Energy
December 21, 2025 at 1:48 PM
From @science.org Breakthrough of the Year: Solar Energy
Reposted
I love academia, half your coworkers left yesterday evening and won't be back until Jan 6, the other half will frantically try to contact you at 8am on New Year's Day
December 19, 2025 at 11:25 PM
I love academia, half your coworkers left yesterday evening and won't be back until Jan 6, the other half will frantically try to contact you at 8am on New Year's Day
Friday Christmas cocktails
December 19, 2025 at 10:13 PM
Friday Christmas cocktails
Reposted
"In other words, basing our approach on journallevel metrics would generate enough noise to make the signal of a future breakthrough difficult or impossible to detect. " On a similar note: journals.plos.org/plosbiology/...
December 19, 2025 at 1:51 PM
"In other words, basing our approach on journallevel metrics would generate enough noise to make the signal of a future breakthrough difficult or impossible to detect. " On a similar note: journals.plos.org/plosbiology/...
Today is a big day.
After many years of work, I’m excited to finally share a paper describing a novel approach to identifying potential breakthroughs in biomedical research, up to twelve years before the breakthrough itself occurs. 1/15
After many years of work, I’m excited to finally share a paper describing a novel approach to identifying potential breakthroughs in biomedical research, up to twelve years before the breakthrough itself occurs. 1/15
December 18, 2025 at 8:38 PM
Today is a big day.
After many years of work, I’m excited to finally share a paper describing a novel approach to identifying potential breakthroughs in biomedical research, up to twelve years before the breakthrough itself occurs. 1/15
After many years of work, I’m excited to finally share a paper describing a novel approach to identifying potential breakthroughs in biomedical research, up to twelve years before the breakthrough itself occurs. 1/15
Reposted
I'm reminded of that recent post from a grant admin who had a PI who used LLMs to generate a checklist and the checklist had the wrong due date.
December 18, 2025 at 4:42 PM
I'm reminded of that recent post from a grant admin who had a PI who used LLMs to generate a checklist and the checklist had the wrong due date.
Reposted
Journal prestige overlooks most influential papers. Our analysis shows that top impact factor journals only catch a small fraction of equally influential articles. There's a lot more science deserving of recognition! #AcademicTwitter #AcademicChatter journals.plos.org/plosbiology/...
Most researchers would receive more recognition if assessed by article-level metrics than by journal-level metrics
Are authors fairly judged by assessment of the prestige of the journals in which their work is published? This study compares article level metrics with journal level metrics, finding that the vast ma...
journals.plos.org
December 16, 2025 at 9:53 PM
Journal prestige overlooks most influential papers. Our analysis shows that top impact factor journals only catch a small fraction of equally influential articles. There's a lot more science deserving of recognition! #AcademicTwitter #AcademicChatter journals.plos.org/plosbiology/...
Reposted
Observation
Those most bullish on use of AI in authoring seem to define productivity in terms of generating papers, not ideas.
Those most bearish seems to define productivity in terms of ideas, not papers.
Those in between seem most focused on whether AI can help improve communication of ideas.
Those most bullish on use of AI in authoring seem to define productivity in terms of generating papers, not ideas.
Those most bearish seems to define productivity in terms of ideas, not papers.
Those in between seem most focused on whether AI can help improve communication of ideas.
December 17, 2025 at 1:18 PM
Observation
Those most bullish on use of AI in authoring seem to define productivity in terms of generating papers, not ideas.
Those most bearish seems to define productivity in terms of ideas, not papers.
Those in between seem most focused on whether AI can help improve communication of ideas.
Those most bullish on use of AI in authoring seem to define productivity in terms of generating papers, not ideas.
Those most bearish seems to define productivity in terms of ideas, not papers.
Those in between seem most focused on whether AI can help improve communication of ideas.
Reposted
Rebuilding trust in science requires people to see themselves in science: expanding representation and social connection across race, gender, class, religion, and rural identity, not just sharing more information.
Representation in science and trust in scientists in the USA - Nature Human Behaviour
Druckman et al. document gaps in trust in scientists in the USA. People from groups less represented among scientists (for example, women and those with lower economic status) are less trusting. Incre...
www.nature.com
December 15, 2025 at 4:23 PM
Rebuilding trust in science requires people to see themselves in science: expanding representation and social connection across race, gender, class, religion, and rural identity, not just sharing more information.
Reposted
My quote of the day
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Stephen Jay Gould
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Stephen Jay Gould
December 14, 2025 at 12:31 PM
My quote of the day
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Stephen Jay Gould
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Stephen Jay Gould
US R&D spending on fundamental research in constant 2005 dollars
from 2013 Press, W. Science 342:817
from 2013 Press, W. Science 342:817
December 13, 2025 at 6:57 PM
US R&D spending on fundamental research in constant 2005 dollars
from 2013 Press, W. Science 342:817
from 2013 Press, W. Science 342:817
It’s up to us to make those new systems: envision them, breathe life into them, and champion their growth.
Every system, every organization we see around us now, was once upon a time just an idea in someone’s head. They did it; we can do it.
Every system, every organization we see around us now, was once upon a time just an idea in someone’s head. They did it; we can do it.
So we stay tethered, in systems that serve fewer and fewer of us, but not able to jump, because where will we land. Who/what will catch us?
December 13, 2025 at 5:27 PM
It’s up to us to make those new systems: envision them, breathe life into them, and champion their growth.
Every system, every organization we see around us now, was once upon a time just an idea in someone’s head. They did it; we can do it.
Every system, every organization we see around us now, was once upon a time just an idea in someone’s head. They did it; we can do it.
Reposted
You can do this right now:
Think of a person who wrote a paper you love, whose work influenced or helped you, or has made your professional life better.
Search up their email address. Shoot them a quick email of thanks. It means so, so much. This is a rough time of year, share some joy.
Think of a person who wrote a paper you love, whose work influenced or helped you, or has made your professional life better.
Search up their email address. Shoot them a quick email of thanks. It means so, so much. This is a rough time of year, share some joy.
December 11, 2025 at 10:08 PM
You can do this right now:
Think of a person who wrote a paper you love, whose work influenced or helped you, or has made your professional life better.
Search up their email address. Shoot them a quick email of thanks. It means so, so much. This is a rough time of year, share some joy.
Think of a person who wrote a paper you love, whose work influenced or helped you, or has made your professional life better.
Search up their email address. Shoot them a quick email of thanks. It means so, so much. This is a rough time of year, share some joy.
Reposted
I’ve said it before: peer review at good journals can be good and valuable, but at the system level, “peer reviewed” [alone] does not convey any level of validity.
Springer-Nature statement
“Whilst the details of peer review are confidential, we can confirm that the article underwent two rounds of review from two independent peer reviewers, supporting an accept decision.”
How am I now expected to believe that two people looked at the paper twice and DGAF?
“Whilst the details of peer review are confidential, we can confirm that the article underwent two rounds of review from two independent peer reviewers, supporting an accept decision.”
How am I now expected to believe that two people looked at the paper twice and DGAF?
Riding the Autism Bicycle to Retraction Town
Does anyone *really* know their Factor Fexcectorn?
nobreakthroughs.substack.com
December 11, 2025 at 1:18 PM
I’ve said it before: peer review at good journals can be good and valuable, but at the system level, “peer reviewed” [alone] does not convey any level of validity.
“That discovery would not have happened if I didn’t have that background,” Dr. Yaghi said. “Mixing talent helps us solve big problems.”
A Scientific Pipeline to the Nobel Prize Fueled by Immigrants www.nytimes.com/2025/12/10/s...
A Scientific Pipeline to the Nobel Prize Fueled by Immigrants www.nytimes.com/2025/12/10/s...
A Scientific Pipeline to the Nobel Prize Fueled by Immigrants
www.nytimes.com
December 11, 2025 at 1:33 PM
“That discovery would not have happened if I didn’t have that background,” Dr. Yaghi said. “Mixing talent helps us solve big problems.”
A Scientific Pipeline to the Nobel Prize Fueled by Immigrants www.nytimes.com/2025/12/10/s...
A Scientific Pipeline to the Nobel Prize Fueled by Immigrants www.nytimes.com/2025/12/10/s...
Proportion of #NIH awards to medical schools versus other institutions, 1952-1961
from: Basic Data Relating to the National Institutes of Health, 1961 -1965
from: Basic Data Relating to the National Institutes of Health, 1961 -1965
December 10, 2025 at 9:23 PM
Proportion of #NIH awards to medical schools versus other institutions, 1952-1961
from: Basic Data Relating to the National Institutes of Health, 1961 -1965
from: Basic Data Relating to the National Institutes of Health, 1961 -1965
Reposted
For decades, much of cancer research focused on tumors themselves. This scientist focused instead on tumors' micro-environments. He was harshly criticized—but his work paid off big.
How A Fringe Idea Led To Lifesaving Cancer Treatments
Over the past century, most cancer research has focused on the tumor itself. Rakesh Jain focused on the tumor's environment instead.
buff.ly
December 10, 2025 at 5:55 PM
For decades, much of cancer research focused on tumors themselves. This scientist focused instead on tumors' micro-environments. He was harshly criticized—but his work paid off big.
percentage of #NIH R01 applications by priority score, using human subjects as a (useful but imperfect) proxy to identify clinical research
from 04 Kotchen et al JAMA
from 04 Kotchen et al JAMA
December 9, 2025 at 5:00 PM
percentage of #NIH R01 applications by priority score, using human subjects as a (useful but imperfect) proxy to identify clinical research
from 04 Kotchen et al JAMA
from 04 Kotchen et al JAMA
Reposted
Paper out today in @nathumbehav.nature.com:
1) those groups (women, African Americans, lower SES, rural) that are underrepresented in science have been less trusting of science.
2) If you improve representation in science, you improve trust among those groups.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
1) those groups (women, African Americans, lower SES, rural) that are underrepresented in science have been less trusting of science.
2) If you improve representation in science, you improve trust among those groups.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Representation in science and trust in scientists in the USA - Nature Human Behaviour
Druckman et al. document gaps in trust in scientists in the USA. People from groups less represented among scientists (for example, women and those with lower economic status) are less trusting. Incre...
www.nature.com
December 9, 2025 at 4:21 AM
Paper out today in @nathumbehav.nature.com:
1) those groups (women, African Americans, lower SES, rural) that are underrepresented in science have been less trusting of science.
2) If you improve representation in science, you improve trust among those groups.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
1) those groups (women, African Americans, lower SES, rural) that are underrepresented in science have been less trusting of science.
2) If you improve representation in science, you improve trust among those groups.
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
