A nice reminder that it's hard to know how often simultaneous discoveries happen in science. Any measures based on scholarly literature will be severe undercounts due to secrecy or simply unpublished work
18.01.2026 04:06 โ
๐ 8
๐ 0
๐ฌ 0
๐ 0
After science
Twenty-five years ago, Ted Chiang wrote a prescient science fiction short that began: โIt has been 25 years since a report of original research was last submitted to our editors for publication, makin...
New piece w/ James Evans in Science explores what we call 'science after science', an era where our ability to control nature may exceed our ability to understand it; a new struggle to sustain curiosity & understanding under AI's predictive dominance. #ai #science
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
14.11.2025 18:23 โ
๐ 25
๐ 10
๐ฌ 0
๐ 0
Title and author info of PNAS paper linked
Now published at PNAS โผ๏ธ w/ @innovation.bsky.social
How does peer reviewer diversity affect fairness in peer review and the direction of published science? We find a "geographical representation bias" in 60 STEM journals published by @ioppublishing.bsky.social.
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
14.08.2025 17:55 โ
๐ 23
๐ 6
๐ฌ 2
๐ 2
Stack of papers and books
This paper explores academic peer review as a source of knowledge transfer and learning for the reviewers themselves.
spkl.io/63328A1crC
@innovation.bsky.social @jamesmzd.bsky.social
23.07.2025 15:00 โ
๐ 3
๐ 2
๐ฌ 1
๐ 0
Bad news for economists...
21.07.2025 09:15 โ
๐ 64
๐ 9
๐ฌ 1
๐ 0
Fewer women amplify their scientific voices online
A new University of Michigan study finds that women are about 28% less likely than men to promote their scientific papers on X (formerly Twitter)โa seemingly minor digital decision that could have big...
Wow - an important read for #academicsky #scisky #medsky, about a study on professional social media activity by female scientists vs male, performed using @altmetric.com data from 2013-2018 (so, pre-Bluesky)
Summary: news.umich.edu/fewer-women-...
Paper: www.nature.com/articles/s41...
07.07.2025 17:48 โ
๐ 111
๐ 41
๐ฌ 5
๐ 3
Do you remember Francesca Gino's claim on her website that HBS analyzed the "wrong data file" in their investigation, and that a "real file" proved her innocence?
HBS is now claiming that the "real file" was fabricated by Gino... and thus that Gino's claim was defamatory.
08.07.2025 13:06 โ
๐ 83
๐ 16
๐ฌ 6
๐ 6
In 1981 NYT published a piece on the then-new citation index, and how it was being used "unintentionally" for performance evaluations
07.07.2025 15:55 โ
๐ 10
๐ 5
๐ฌ 1
๐ 1
Title page of "Learning by Evaluating"
Probability of citing manuscript within 3 years, by review status. Reviewers are more than twice as likely to cite reviewed paper in future work compared to invited reviewers who declined due to unavailability.
๐ฎNEW WORKING PAPER ALERT๐ฎ
Scientists collectively spend tens of millions of hours peer reviewing each year, mostly for no $$. Why??
In new work w/ Charles Ayoubi and @innovation.bsky.social, we observe a private benefit for participating in evaluation: ๐ก๐กLearning๐ก๐ก
06.07.2025 16:25 โ
๐ 51
๐ 13
๐ฌ 2
๐ 6
Interesting take. Thanks for linking
06.07.2025 01:07 โ
๐ 1
๐ 0
๐ฌ 0
๐ 0
Why do we peer review?
In a new paper, we establish a self-interested reason: learning.
With a quasi-experimental design applied to admin data from 55 journals, we show reviewing a paper doubles chances of citing it in future work!
05.07.2025 00:24 โ
๐ 40
๐ 5
๐ฌ 3
๐ 2
๐
01.07.2025 16:14 โ
๐ 0
๐ 0
๐ฌ 0
๐ 0
Men are much more likely to self-promote their papers on Twitter/X than women
01.07.2025 15:45 โ
๐ 10
๐ 1
๐ฌ 2
๐ 0
First-ever ranking of journals by impact factor, published by Garfield in Science in 1972.
Science is ranked #77, impact factor 2.99
Nature is #114, impact factor 2.34
19.06.2025 04:34 โ
๐ 24
๐ 3
๐ฌ 1
๐ 3
No, I'd say conventional wisdom doesn't even conceptualize interdisc. as topic vs knowledgebase, it's usually just 1 dimensional. We see that conceptualization as one of our contributions.
15.05.2025 21:13 โ
๐ 2
๐ 0
๐ฌ 0
๐ 0
Feels reasonable to me too. But that's not quite the conventional wisdom ๐คท
15.05.2025 19:20 โ
๐ 1
๐ 0
๐ฌ 1
๐ 0
Tldr: conventional wisdom only partially true, depends on
- which interdis. type we're talking about
- how types align with each other and audience
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
15.05.2025 01:04 โ
๐ 6
๐ 1
๐ฌ 1
๐ 0
Conventional wisdom says interdisciplinary research is valuable but harder to get through peer review (need to please diverse reviewers, etc).
@sdxiang.bsky.social Daniel and I partnered with @ioppublishing.bsky.social to test this wisdom and add nuance
15.05.2025 01:03 โ
๐ 21
๐ 9
๐ฌ 1
๐ 0
Schism 2: electric boogaloo
03.05.2025 03:53 โ
๐ 3
๐ 1
๐ฌ 0
๐ 0
Periodic reminder that economists would sacrifice half a thumb for an AER pub
02.05.2025 03:22 โ
๐ 11
๐ 4
๐ฌ 2
๐ 2