Tessera
Folgen

Aaron Clauset

@aaronclauset.bsky.social

NO KINGS. NO FASCISTS. FUND SCIENCE. Professor of Computer Science @ BioFrontiers Institute at University of Colorado, Boulder and External Faculty @ Santa Fe Institute orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3529-8746

1171 Posts6327 Follower126 Folgt
Angela Andersen@angelaandersen.bsky.social · 4d ago

Kudos to @science.org for this self-analysis of the peer review process. These kind of data are never shared and don't have to be. Wildly refreshing to see it out in the open. Editorial and peer review dynamics at elite general science journals | Science Advances www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

Editorial and peer review dynamics at elite general science journals

Analyses of deidentified data reveal complex interactions that quantify success at elite general science journals.

science.org

Dominique Baker@bakerdphd.bsky.social · yesterday

Big assoc between evaluation and prestige & paper topic "...raises an important question: To what extent do the editors and reviewers at elite journals tend to overlook great scientific contributions that lack these advantageous author and manuscript characteristics?" www.science.org/doi/full/10....

Editorial and peer review dynamics at elite general science journals

Analyses of deidentified data reveal complex interactions that quantify success at elite general science journals.

science.org

Aaron Clauset@aaronclauset.bsky.social · 4d ago

My inbox and text message app are full of messages to myself, for just this reason — stray thoughts, musings, ruminations while running, whatever, are raw material for writing. I’d add: photos of whiteboards filled with plans, diagrams, pithy phrases, and outlines. This. Is. Writing.

Jacqueline Antonovich@jackiantonovich.bsky.social · 4d ago

*Bonus*: always remind yourself that thinking is part of writing. Actual typing of text is just a sliver of writing. So, shower thoughts, walking thoughts, random thoughts in the day about your project *is* writing. Text yourself those thoughts (or get a dictation app)

Santa Fe Institute @sfiscience.bsky.social · 5d ago

Competition to publish in elite journals is fierce, yet the confidentiality of the peer-review process — the gold standard for assessing whether a study meets the criteria for publication — has long made the process itself hard to study. A new paper in Science Advances offers a first look.

New study examines publication trends at top journals

The small fraction of papers that make it to publication in the top scientific journals plays a powerful role in scientific discourse, shaping both public policy and scientific careers, yet the confid...

santafe.edu

Rachel Coldicutt@rachelcoldicutt.bsky.social · 6d ago

My boiling hot take on this is that, if tech companies are going to fund this kind of research (looking at Schmidt too), then the money needs to be given *no strings* to an independent arm's length research body, pooled with other funding, and treated as a donation not as direct funding.

Hetan Shah@hetanshah.bsky.social · 6d ago

Anthropic AI research fund offers $5m - $30m for social science research on themes of AI impact on workers; transition initiatives; income support; building worker stakes; and wider evidence on public investments. Total fund of $200m available www.anthropic.com/news/economi...

sorelle@friedler.net · last wk.

My department is hiring tenure-track in computer science! Deadline: Oct 1, 2026. We care about and support both research and teaching. We're located in the suburbs of Philadelphia. It's a great place to work and live! I'm happy to answer any questions. www.haverford.edu/provost/news...

Tenure-Track Assistant Professor of Computer Science

Haverford College invites applications for a Tenure-Track Assistant Professor of Computer Science to begin Fall 2027.

haverford.edu

Mark Histed@markhisted.org · 2w ago

Also: We keep hearing that a number of Congressmembers think that everything at NIH has gone back to normal, and the Trump appointees are in fact on the side of saving NIH. That is false. Things at NIH are WORSE than last year. Please reach out to your senators and reps and tell them that.

Jeffrey Lin@jeffrlin.bsky.social · 2w ago

Here's the video of my presentation of this paper at the NBER SI: www.youtube.com/live/405kSya...

Macroeconomics and Productivity, NBER Summer Institute

YouTube video by NBER

youtube.com

Jeffrey Lin@jeffrlin.bsky.social · last mo.

On February 14, 1876, Bell & Gray each filed for a telephone patent. Such collisions were once routine — up to 1 in 20 patents triggered an "patent interference." Over the next 150 years, that rate fell by more than 98%. In a new paper, we explain why — and what it might cost.

Portrait of Alexander Graham Bell
Professa Murray@kalimurray.bsky.social · 2w ago

Everyone coming on my feed and explaining to me that all is lost, I note what I have noted before, that there are no Negro Spirituals entitled, “Welp, I Guess It All Sucks and I Am Giving Up.”

Kate Clancy@kateclancy.bsky.social · last mo.

In fact, that's in the analysis too - tenure-stream faculty, for whom research is a major part of their contractual obligation and the foundation of the incentive structure for tenure and promotion, work more hours on average than NTT faculty:

What are faculty doing with their time when they aren’t teaching? FSSE data show that faculty report spending 40 to 57 percent of their time teaching. Although they teach less, tenured and tenure-track faculty members actually work around 15 percent longer hours compared to their nontenure-track peers and devote more time to both research and to service.
Max Kennerly@maxkennerly.bsky.social · last mo.

Today we celebrate the PDFing of "Declaration FINAL v3 USE THIS ONE - SIGNED.docx" (Jefferson's draft was heavily edited by the Committee, then again by Congress, and he was big mad about it.)

📂 Version 1.0 — June 20, 1776 File Name: Declaration_Draft_TJ_DO_NOT_EDIT.docx Author: t_jefferson_33 Commit Message: "Initial copy-paste from my Mason_VA_Rights_Notes.txt and VA_Constitution_V2.docx scratchpads. Confine your review to grammar and typos, and do not redline, only leave comments." Tracked Changes & Notes: Line 14: "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable..." Comment from t_jefferson_33: "Certified banger." 📂 Version 1.1 — June 24, 1776 File Name: Declaration_Draft_TJ_comments_JA_BF.docx Editors: b_franklin_GrittyOG and JA_redsoxfan (obo Committee, w/ Sherman and Livingston) Commit Message: "First pass by the Committee of Five. Modest style changes." Tracked Changes & Notes: 47 revisions (redlined), three full new paragraphs Deleted: "sacred & undeniable" * Inserted: "self-evident" Comment from b_franklin_GrittyOG: "250 years from now, people will think you wrote that banger. You’re welcome." 📂 Version 2.0 — June 28, 1776 File Name: Declaration_Committee_Review_FINAL.docx Author: t_jefferson_33 Commit Message: "Incorporated Ben and John's very minor edits of my excellent first draft into a clean copy. Ready for the Continental Congress to approve verbatim." 📂 Version 2.1 to 2.8 — July 2 – July 4, 1776 File Name: Declaration_CONGRESS_REVISED2_redline_NEW_v4_approved..docx Editors: Continental_Congress Group Chat (50+ active users) Commit Message: "Line-by-line review by committee. Light trimming, a mere 20% of the original text. Optimizing for colonial unity." Tracked Changes & Notes: ❌ CRITICAL DELETION: 300 word imprudent diatribe against KG III for transatlantic slave trade (“waging cruel war against human nature”). Comment from dunkin_delegate: “Jefferson wrote that? He always struck me as a smug hypocrite. #IYKYK” Comment from SC_delegation_delegate: "I thought we agreed this issue was off the table for now. It can be amicably settled later." ❌ DELETION: Large sections complaining about the ordinary British public being "deaf to the voice of justice." Comment from NY_delegation_hub: "Guys, let's keep the finger pointed strictly at King George. If we trash the British citizens, we ruin any chance of future trade partnerships or alliances. Keep it professional." ➕ INSERTION: Added "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world" and "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence" to the closing paragraph. Comment from Middlesex_Conservative: "Marketing requested more religious claptrap to ensure maximum buy-in from the zealots." System Notification: User t_jefferson_33 reacted 👎(39 instances). 📂 Version 3.0 (Production) — July 4, 1776 (Late Morning) File Name: Declaration_of_Independence_FINAL_v3_USE_THIS_ONE_SIGNED.docx Editors: john_hancock_big_font Commit Message: "Approved. Shipped to the printers. John Hancock didn't realize his zoom level was at 200% when he signed. Committee unable to find the one intern who can resize images, shipping anyway." System Notification: User t_jefferson_33 has left the chat. The draft of the Declaration was revised first by Adams and Franklin, and then by the full committee. A total of 47 alterations, including the insertion of three complete paragraphs, were made to the text before it was presented to Congress on June 28. After voting for independence on July 2, Congress continued to refine the document, making 39 additional revisions to the committee draft before its final adoption on the morning of July 4. The draft shows the multiplicity of corrections, additions and deletions that were made at each step. Although most of the alterations are in Jefferson's handwriting (Jefferson later indicated which changes he believed were made by Adams and Franklin), he felt slighted by the way Congress rewrote the manuscript. In a consoling letter of July 21, 1776, the state's senior delegate, Richard Henry Lee, wrote to Jefferson that he wished that "the manuscript had not been mangled as it is." In an 1823 letter to Madison, Jefferson wrote that, at the time, "during the debate, I was sitting by Dr. Franklin and he observed that I was writhing a little under the acrimonious criticisms" of Congress. In fact, as Congress neared completion of the document by altering nearly all of his last paragraph, Jefferson could only write in the margin "a different phraseology inserted." Jefferson remained bitter about the changes made to the Declaration of Independence right up to his death. His autobiography was a major effort to set the record straight on its writing.
Aaron Clauset@aaronclauset.bsky.social · last mo.

Today is my first day as our department's Associate Chair for Faculty Affairs. We have close to 80 faculty. Although I'm not religious, it seems apropos to invoke the Serenity Prayer: give me serenity, courage, and wisdom.

Max Kozlov@maxkozlov.bsky.social · last mo.

NIH grants have been under political scrutiny since early 2025. But what does the screening process actually look like? What is being flagged? I spent a month digging into leaked docs and emails. We've published the 235-word list that are being flagged by an internal AI tool. And so much more. 🧵

Inside the new political screening that’s stalling NIH grants

Mandatory reviews by top health officials and checks for 235 disfavoured terms have left hundreds of vetted grant applications in administrative limbo.

nature.com

Kate Barnes@k-barnes.bsky.social · last mo.

7\ In the computer science coauthorship network, we observe disparities in coauthorship centrality by gender, race, academic parent status, and most prominantly by institutional prestige 📈

Bar chart showing that women are less centrally located than men, minority races less central than majority races, those at low prestige institutions less central than those at high prestige institutions and those whose parents held academia jobs are less central than those with academic parents.
Kate Barnes@k-barnes.bsky.social · last mo.

6\ Key finding: computer scientists from top institutions are located more centrally in the coauthorship network. The network is built from all DBLP-indexed publications, and also exhibits significant racial but not gender-based homophily.

Figure shows a strong linear correlation between the institutional prestige scores and coauthorhsip centrality of U.S. computer scientists. Bar chart displays homophilic collaboration rates significantly higher than expected for White, East Asian, Indian and Middle Eastern scholars, as well as generally for scholars from majority and minority racial groups.
Philip Ball@philipcball.bsky.social · last mo.

"Ultimately, the survival of democracy depends on institutional courage... The lessons of history and contemporary experience converge on a single point: institutions must choose between being bulwarks of democracy or bridges to authoritarianism." 👏👏👏

Martin McKee@martinmckee.bsky.social · last mo.

6/ Bottom line: institutions are not passive. They are active agents. Democracy survives only when leaders choose principle over expediency, accepting short‑term costs to protect long‑term norms. Read the paper here: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

anil oza@aniloza.bsky.social · 2mo ago

A 20 year study on 2 NIH diversity programs in Science Advances shows they doubled undergrads' odds of getting a Ph.D. That is, before the funding for those programs and for the study itself was terminated last year: www.statnews.com/2026/06/17/n...

NIH diversity programs doubled undergraduates’ odds of getting a Ph.D., 20-year study finds

A new study found that two diversity-oriented programs supported by the NIH doubled the odds that an undergraduate would earn a Ph.D.

statnews.com

Aaron Clauset@aaronclauset.bsky.social · 2mo ago

The whole "science is slowing down" discourse is deeply frustratingly to me. Advocates betray a small-minded view of science that is inherently "extractive", and they assume we can accurately measure scientific understanding with shitty citation data. I'm ashamed by science of science's involvement

Dan Garisto@dangaristo.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Interesting point in a longer article about the state of science, which probably deserves its own feature (or book). Metrics about declining productivity come from science of science studies that look for novelty in citation trees which, well... 🤷‍♂️ www.scientificamerican.com/article/amer...

For most of this century pretty much every metric of scientific productivity—new results, new discoveries and new inventions—has appeared to be down. This idea is controversial, and the data are difficult to measure, but that’s academic because this nominal downturn opened the institutions of science to criticism that it was scientists who were failing to honor the bargain. Maybe it’s no surprise that the whole thing has turned into what Arizona State University sociologist Edward Hackett calls “academic capitalism.” Today’s investors and policymakers think all research should be economically relevant and assist in the accumulation of capital. A “knowledge-based economy,” says Lancaster University sociologist Bob Jessop, wants all scientists to be entrepreneurs. Which all sounds familiar.