suspect a big reason why many academics and others who work in areas where getting facts RIGHT is key are disinterested in using LLMs for research:
theyβve tried it, they keep noticing major errors in output, and they conclude that having to verify all that doesnβt actually save them time.
21.12.2025 16:16 β π 3221 π 621 π¬ 112 π 182
Ampicillin/Sulbactam in Combination with Ceftazidime/Avibactam against Metallo-Γ-Lactamase-Producing Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: A Genomics-Informed Mechanism-Based Model
β
Just Accepted
π https://bit.ly/3WUrcmU
19.12.2025 21:15 β π 4 π 3 π¬ 1 π 1
An activate-to-eliminate approach in HIV
Joel N. Blankson & team report on a strategy to selectively eliminate antigen-specific HIV infected CD4+ T cells by stimulation with cognate peptides and incubation with antiproliferative drugs: doi.org/10.1172/JCI1...
17.12.2025 14:03 β π 1 π 3 π¬ 0 π 0
National Academy of Medicine launches AI patient safety initiative to develop harm prevention frameworks across healthcare systems www.beckershospitalreview.com/healthcare-i...
12.12.2025 12:17 β π 0 π 2 π¬ 0 π 0
Thanks for sharing! These 1st hand experiences are really important, especially for students.
15.11.2025 15:52 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
Clifti-GPT: Privacy-preserving federated fine-tuning and transferable inference of foundation models on clinical single-cell data #SingleCell π§ͺπ§¬π₯οΈ
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-7917089/latest
12.11.2025 08:00 β π 0 π 1 π¬ 0 π 0
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below.
1. The four-fold drain
1.1 Money
Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for
whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who
created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis,
which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024
alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit
margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher
(Elsevier) always over 37%.
Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most
consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial
difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor &
Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American
researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The
Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3
billion in that year.
A figure detailing the drain on researcher time.
1. The four-fold drain
1.2 Time
The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce,
with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure
1A). This reflects the fact that publishersβ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material
has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs,
grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for
profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time.
The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million
unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of
peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting
widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the
authorsβ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many
review demands.
Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of
scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in
βossificationβ, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow
progress until one considers how it affects researchersβ time. While rewards remain tied to
volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier,
local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with
limited progress whereas core scholarly practices β such as reading, reflecting and engaging
with othersβ contributions β is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks
intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision.
A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below:
1. The four-fold drain
1.1 Money
Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for
whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who
created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis,
which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024
alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit
margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher
(Elsevier) always over 37%.
Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most
consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial
difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor &
Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American
researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The
Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3
billion in that year.
The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised
scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers
first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour
resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:
a π§΅ 1/n
Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
11.11.2025 11:52 β π 641 π 453 π¬ 8 π 66
Efficient and accurate search in petabase-scale sequence repositories - Nature
MetaGraph enables scalable indexing of large sets of DNA, RNA or protein sequences using annotated de Bruijn graphs.
MetaGraph by Karasikov and coauthors makes the worldβs DNA searchable. By turning 67 petabases of raw sequences into a compressed graph structure, it enables fast, low-cost search across global genomic dataβbringing biology closer to having its own βsearch engineβ. www.nature.com/articles/s41...
13.10.2025 12:20 β π 1 π 1 π¬ 0 π 0
The Impact of Tokenizer Selection in Genomic Language Models. #GenomicLanguageModels #Genomics #LLMs #Bioinformatics
academic.oup.com/bioinformati...
31.08.2025 07:32 β π 3 π 3 π¬ 0 π 0
PBMCpedia: A Harmonized PBMC scRNA-seq Database With Unified Mapping and Enhanced Celltype Annotation #SingleCell π§ͺπ§¬π₯οΈ
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.08.06.668843v1
09.08.2025 07:00 β π 1 π 2 π¬ 0 π 0
Every time I read about experiments showing AI cheating, deceiving, tricking--the last one finding how o3 is a master schemer when playing Diplomacy against other AIs--I keep thinking how we are slowly approaching the proof that philosophical zombies are real.
09.06.2025 19:06 β π 1 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
Reproducibility: How replicable is biomedical science in Brazil?
The results of a project to estimate the reproducibility of research in Brazil have just been published.
π§π· The Brazilian Reproducibility Initiative published the results of 143 replication attempts in biomedical science.
Success rates ranged from just 15β45%.
Now, the project team reflects on what made replication so hard and what needs to change.
buff.ly/55j9Sax
09.05.2025 08:21 β π 12 π 3 π¬ 1 π 1
Illumina announced the discontinuation of the old MiSeq, MiniSeq and old i100 instruments.
28.03.2025 13:02 β π 1 π 4 π¬ 1 π 0
This example, along with others, seems to tell us that, after all, philosophical zombies could be a thing.
I mean, you get all these AI behaviors that we naively ascribed to conscious (or partially conscious) beings only. Because
they not getting conscious, one step at the time, right? Right...?
24.02.2025 19:59 β π 1 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
Composite image of women scientists from the Joyce lab over the past 20 years
Happy International Day of Women and Girls in Science!
Its been a privilege to work with these extraordinary scientists in my lab over the years - all making an incredible impact throughout the world π
We must never give up on #equality #diversity & #inclusion πͺ
#WomeninScience #GirlsInSTEM π§ͺπ¬ππ
11.02.2025 12:00 β π 224 π 53 π¬ 0 π 3