Anna Krahl

@paleokrahl.bsky.social

PhD, geologist, paleontologist and flipperologist, accidentally ecolables & communication consultant, currently e-learning platform manager in med. tech., mom in #STEM, she/her

🚨News alert!🚨 I have found a new job! On short notice, I started at a medium-sized, globally acting medical technical company in my area. I'll be managing an online learning platform with partially heavy content based info from various related areas and continue to develop it.

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/... 🧪

"don't cite what you haven't read" remains the basic entry level academic responsibility; & if your discpline "doesn't have that as a norm" then sorry, your discipline needs reforming for this new world. Citations are structural parts of trust and knowledge building, not trinkets or optional extras

Miles Klee 🦉@milesklee.bsky.social · 8mo ago

Academics and technologists are sounding the alarm about a growing crisis in scholarship as we know it: AI-generated citations of nonexistent papers that have infested real journals. Despite being fake, the sources are widely assumed to be authentic the more they appear in published literature.

Absolutely nobody asked for this but I reformatted my animal yeetability thread into printable poster & zine files. Introducing, the "Pocket Guide to Responsible & Sustainable Animal YEETING" featuring a revamped rating system. Download links below.

Poster showing various animals and their yeetability rating. For full rating, see the link in the reply. Intro text reads:

POCKET GUIDE TO RESPONSIBLE & SUSTAINABLE ANIMAL YEETING
by franzanth

In this context, YEETING is defined as the act of throwing a “projectile” at a slightly upward angle with low initial velocity. The goal here is relocation, not destruction. Therefore, YEETING is ideally performed toward soft surfaces like leaves to minimize downward acceleration that might result in said projectile's discomfort.
franz@franzanth.bsky.social · 2y ago

Someone was surprised to learn that I yeet bugs out instead of *gently relocating* them. I appreciate the gesture. But in the tropics, seeing bugs where they shouldn't be is an hourly—not weekly thing. You learn what can survive a yeet to save time. In this thread I'm rating animal yeetability.

Someone was surprised to learn that I yeet bugs out instead of *gently relocating* them. I appreciate the gesture. But in the tropics, seeing bugs where they shouldn't be is an hourly—not weekly thing. You learn what can survive a yeet to save time. In this thread I'm rating animal yeetability.