Izzy Jayasinghe

@ijayas.bsky.social

Scientist (biophysics, single molecule imaging,🔬) | HoD of Molecular Medicine UNSW Sydney | she/her | 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ | proud Tangata Tiriti | mostly posting science, academia, & inequality | posts reflect personal views only.

Universities can do without such myopic decisions. I regularly have conversations /w students & ECRs about their writing skills & the risks of giving in to AI. The 💡 go on when I explain the inevitable tipping point in society’s trust in AI. All we will have left will be our own abilities to write.

Mary Lewis@profmarylewis.bsky.social · last wk.

It‘s quite possible that with this move, @harvard.edu could become the only Ivy League university without a writing center. www.thecrimson.com/article/2026...

Jason is the youngest Black professor in Cambridge’s history. Rightwing newspapers are trying to smear him with fake accusations of plagiarism. We can't let them. Stand up to their hate and division by adding your name. goodlawproject.org/s/3ec4c0

Stand up to hate and division by adding your name.

Jason is the youngest Black professor in Cambridge’s history. Rightwing newspapers are trying to smear him with fake accusations of plagiarism. We can't let them.

goodlawproject.org

Hey Siri, show me a system that looks to filter out the scientific discoveries of women with seniority. The paper confirms the hostility many of us feel is baked into the editorial & peer review community (sitting behind a veil of anonymity) that prefer to see papers led by women thrown out.

Excerpt from the paper:

Gendered effects in peer review
At Science and Science Advances, manuscripts with women corresponding authors make up a gradually declining share from submission to review to acceptance (20.9% → 20.8% → 19.7% → 17.9% and 22.3% → 21.4% → 21.3% → 20.1%, respective-ly; Fig. 2B). Accounting for available covari-ates via multiple logistic regression reveals a small but statistically significant association with corresponding author gender in being sent to review or accepted after review (B =
-0.08, P < 0.001 for sent to review; B = -0.13, P
= 0.011 for accepted; tables S8 and S11).% plot of women’s representation among first authors (solid symbols), corresponding authors (open symbols), and among first-round peer reviewers (crossed symbols) over the evaluation process. Red line and symbols indicate the journal Science, blue indicating Sci Adv. all lines generally trending down from Submission stage, through editorial and peer review stages to acceptance stages.
Javi Ibarrondo@jibarrondo.bsky.social · 3w ago

Editorial and peer review dynamics at elite general science journals | Science Advances www.science.org/doi/10.1126/... 🧪