Phil was a very kind man who will be sorely missed. He was a true visionary and an inspiration to young scientists such as myself.

RCSB Protein Data Bank@rcsbpdb.bsky.social · 5mo ago

Remembering Philip E. Bourne Phil was a key figure in launching the RCSB PDB and served as Associate Director from 1998-2013

the benefit from writing the paper is not having a 30-page paper as a result the benefit is the thinking that goes along with writing the paper — that is part of writing the paper. If all that's done is the pre-analysis plan and the analysis then that limits the new thinking

Josh Shepperd@joshshepperd.bsky.social · 6mo ago

Nope.

"Unlike human reviewers, who care about knowledge, LLMs have no stake in whether a finding is true, a method convincing or a theory illuminating. They have not helped build the edifice of knowledge... They cannot be embarrassed to be wrong." www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/ai-n...

AI is not a peer, so it can’t do peer review

If we still believe that science is a vocation grounded in argument, curiosity and care, we can’t delegate judgement to machines, says Akhil Bhardwaj

timeshighereducation.com

one for #glycotime

Louis Wilson@louisflwilson.bsky.social · 7mo ago

Hi fellow membrane protein #StructuralBiology people! Do you use maltoside detergents / model them in your stuctures? Watch out! ⚠️ Most PDB models of LMNG and GDN are wrong ❌, yet continue to be re-used. Spread the word! See more: doi.org/10.1021/acsc... (w. @sebvidalchem.bsky.social ) #cryoEM

Hi fellow membrane protein #StructuralBiology people! Do you use maltoside detergents / model them in your stuctures? Watch out! ⚠️ Most PDB models of LMNG and GDN are wrong ❌, yet continue to be re-used. Spread the word! See more: doi.org/10.1021/acsc... (w. @sebvidalchem.bsky.social ) #cryoEM

Peer-reviews by ChatGPT: what is the point? If I wanted a chatbot's opinion I can ask it myself. More action is needed from journals. www.nature.com/articles/d41...

More than half of researchers now use AI for peer review — often against guidance

A survey of 1,600 academics found that more than 50% have used artificial-intelligence tools while peer reviewing manuscripts.

nature.com