Misha Teplitskiy | Science of science | on LinkedIn mostly
@innovation.bsky.social
Mostly on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/misha-teplitskiy
Unexpected finding from a study on ChatGPT's impact on college: "once the COVID-19 disruption is modeled separately, the introduction of ChatGPT had no detectable effect on grades.. course evaluations for subject understanding, interest, and relative workload show no change" arxiv.org/pdf/2607.21534
2. Do university presidents matter? Do they steer resources towards research fields they come from? Zerin Dong's paper suggests yes and yes
Misha Teplitskiy | Science of science | on LinkedIn mostly@innovation.bsky.social · last mo.Alright boys and girls, let's reboot this account and see what's going on over at #ICSSI2026! A thread 🧵... 1. Gross and Bergstrom with a deep slide: incentives for early stage evaluations (grants) different from late stage (papers)
Alright boys and girls, let's reboot this account and see what's going on over at #ICSSI2026! A thread 🧵... 1. Gross and Bergstrom with a deep slide: incentives for early stage evaluations (grants) different from late stage (papers)
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 Any measures based on scholarly literature will be severe undercounts due to secrecy or simply unpublished work
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/...
After science
Twenty-five years ago, Ted Chiang wrote a prescient science fiction short that began: “It has been 25 years since a report of original research was last submitted to our editors for publication, makin...
science.org
Now published at PNAS ‼️ 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/...
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
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...
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)—a seemingly minor digital decision that could have big...
news.umich.edu
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.
In 1981 NYT published a piece on the then-new citation index, and how it was being used "unintentionally" for performance evaluations
🏮NEW WORKING PAPER ALERT🏮 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: 💡💡Learning💡💡
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!
Men are much more likely to self-promote their papers on Twitter/X than women
Seems relevant: politicians are more likely to vote for war when they don't have sons who would do the fighting www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1...
No Kin in the Game: Moral Hazard and War in the US Congress | Journal of Political Economy: Vol 131, No 9
We study agency frictions in the US Congress. We examine the long-standing hypothesis that political elites engage in conflict because they fail to internalize the associated costs. We compare the vot...
journals.uchicago.edu
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
Going to the hospital because I broke my wrist smashing the endorse button: www.understandingai.org/p/i-got-fool...
I got fooled by AI-for-science hype—here's what it taught me
I used AI in my plasma physics research and it didn’t go the way I expected.
understandingai.org
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
Periodic reminder that economists would sacrifice half a thumb for an AER pub
Does professor quality matter for training the next generation of researchers? Or will good PhD students do good research either way? Quality matters
There used to be very little turnover in NIH sections, now there's a lot more
Hmmm, maybe enforcing antitrust is a good idea 🤔
The academic job market has changed just a bit (from an interview with Robert Barro)
Can we stop diffusion of particular AI technologies to countries we don't "like"? ChatGPT is useful case. OpenAI *still* prohibits access in major countries. But do these prohibitions actually work? New paper by @honglin-bao.bsky.social and @sunmengyi.bsky.social suggests they don't! 1/3
Marc Andreessen really, really hates universities, which seems to be a pretty common sensibility from billionaires who have spent too much time online. www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/o...
